Talk:North Korea/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Hereditary Dictatorship

This should probably have a citation. The article itself talks very little of the DPRK being a monarchy or a hereditary dictatorship. As far as I know, there is no legal code (for lack of a better term) that establishes familial ancestry as how succession works. Especially since Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un all occupied different positions with different roles and functions. Genabab (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the government field of the infobox should stick to its forms/structures and avoid the Wikipedia:SYNTH characterization. This field should simply say "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house" as supported by, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Republic" flies in the face of numerous sources. They call it a dictatorship, and so should we.[1][2][3] Adoring nanny (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is missing the point a bit. We call it a dictatorship numerous times in the article body. That's the correct place to do so. No one who has read the article can miss these characterizations. This is a question about what to list in the infobox field, specifically. This is a field where we should be focused on the forms and structures of government. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are the infobox descriptions of some other dictatorships:

• Belarus Unitary presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship
• Syria Unitary presidential republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship
• Venezuela Federal presidential republic under a centralized authoritarian state

I think this partly supports my edit, but also partly not. The word "republic" does appear. But they also say that it's under a dictatorship. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Even though these sorts of comparisons seem intuitive, they are not an appropriate basis for decision due to the policies inWikipedia:OTHERCONTENT. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It's what it is, according to sources. Anything else would be incorrect. JArthur1984, you should not be trying to force a change when you yourself have repeatedly advocated this negationist view in the past without reaching consensus for a change. Sources have been provided to you, it's not synth. While I am aware that you believe the whole concept of a totalitarian dictatorship is shallow political analysis, you are up against the majority of scholarly tertiary sources on the matter. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a non-constructive response. Of course my position is consistent. Keep in mind that my view is about what the "government" field in the country infobox is for. You are incorrect on the procedure - another editor made this fix (I believe about a week ago) when the only talk page participants were in favor of making the correction. No one else joined the discussion. I reverted once following another editor's driveby RV (this other editor did not engage in the talk page discussion). This is neither disruptive nor trying to force a change. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

who writes these articles????????? 2601:603:1400:B9D0:60FD:2D2E:B47E:F3A8 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more important that we consider what is in the DPRK's own constitution. What better source is there? If you want to add a "de facto" this or that afterwards that's another discussion. But for now, the current description ought to change. Genabab (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between dictatorship and 'Totalitarian Hereditory Dictatorship'. In any case could you add the sources you're talking about that call North Korea a Totalitarian Hereditory Dictatorship? It would help normal readers a lot, or if those sources don't exist maybe remove that phrase to adhere to Wikipedia standards of sourcing. Himanshu.cracked (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Genabab, you can read Political Dynamics of Hereditary Succession in North Korea if you would like to see a good explanation of how the succession works. You say it cannot be a dictatorship because the dictators change titles frequently, but that is a North Korean propaganda technique that does not substitute for RS on Wikipedia. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of sources which use "hereditary dictatorship" [4][5][6] etc Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There is frankly, a concerning degree of historical negationism around this topic. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind quoting me where I said. I did not suggest that the DPRK was not authoritarian. I said that it was not a hereditary monarchy or something. Which there is no mention of in the DPRK's constitution.

I'm just very confused where: "You say it cannot be a dictatorship" came from because I never said anything vaguely similar Genabab (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

To elaborate, “Heads of State,” “Heads of Government,” “Heads of Parliament,” and “Premiers of North Korea” are not part of this family. Additionally, the State Affairs Commission, Cabinet, Central Committee of the WPK, Politburo, and SPA all have many members not within this specific Kim family.

The Kim family itself does not inherit any positions. Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un, hold the position of Premier. After Kim Il-Sung it was Hong Song-Nam who held the position.

Neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un were President of the Presidium. That being held by Choe Ryong-Hae.

Now to be clear, a position of power that Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jon-Un have both held is The Chairman of the National Defense Commission.

But legally speaking, neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un are the heads of state.

Which, again, is why I am saying that if you want to talk of a de facto hereditary succession, then do that. But as it is implies that this is what the legal code for succession is in the DPRK. Which is just not reflective of reality. Genabab (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You're not going to convince anyone here of your position by appealing to political semantics. If you're trying to argue that Kim Jong Un didn't succeed his father as North Korea's top political leader because a couple of meaningless titles were swapped around, then this conversation is already over. You will not find common ground with 99.9% of the editors here who are citing reliable sources. The existing status quo in the infobox does not imply that North Korea is constitutionally or legally a hereditary dictatorship. If this is your reading of how the infobox is, then why would you not have a problem with North Korea being described as authoritarian, totalitarian, or a dictatorship? Does your understanding of the infobox not extend to those labels? Yue🌙 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is exactly "political semantics" when these are different positions with different roles and purposes. Do you disagree that this is the case?

> then this conversation is already over.

It helps no one to be reductive...

Also, only one reliable source was cited. The list of 3 sources offer no analysis of the DPRK as a monarchy or hereditary dictatorship. Reffering to it as such in terms of "maybe this will be the next ruler??" and in passing over all. The other source, I haven't had the time to read it yet so I can't comment

In what way does it not imply that? If it is saying "this is what the government is" then that is precisely what it implies, no?

I would have a problem with it because there is no mention of this in the constitution of the DPRK. And that is what matters when looking at what a countries government is. Any further analysis belongs in the rest of the article. Genabab (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In Addition, there are sources that refer to the DPRK in the same form as the edit I provided as JArthur1984 showed with Encyclopedia Britannica, so I don't know why you said only one side here has sources Genabab (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We will not be citing the North Korean constitution. It’s a primary source and a propaganda document. We aren’t bound by North Korean law here on Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources to assess the situation impartially. 25stargeneral (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

> and a propaganda document

Says who? Is the US constitution also a propaganda document?

> We aren’t bound by North Korean law here on Wikipedia

I don't think anyone was saying we were?

> We rely on secondary sources to assess the situation impartially

I think this misunderstands the point. For a fair analysis, sure. This is a good way of doing things. But when you're looking at, legally speaking, what something is. It makes sense to look at these primary sources. The arguments against that and de facto situation come later, in the body of the article. Genabab (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence here gets to the center of the issue for me. The government field in country infoboxes should describe the de jure government. Characterizations should be dealt with in the body of the article where attribution can be clearer and multiple views can be given their due weight.

I don't think there is more to do here unless other editors join the discussion and the consensus shifts again. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on this User: Yue, user:25stargeneral? Genabab (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You and JArthur1984 appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. We follow reliable, secondary sources. They say the form of government is a hereditary dictatorship, so that's what we say. You say But when you're looking at, legally speaking, what something is. It makes sense to look at these primary sources. There is no such Wikipedia policy, and in fact we have strong policies against that. I couldn't care less what laws the North Korean government passes attempting to distort reality. That's not what determines what reality is. 25stargeneral (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

> We follow reliable, secondary sources

The secondary sources in question appear to say "hereditary" in passing, which isn't reliable. That doesn't prove anything other than that's what they think. There is no analysis being made.

> There is no such Wikipedia policy

I'm pretty sure there is. You seem to be confusing the wikipedia policy for analysis (which, again, belongs in the main body of the article) with the governmant tab.

> . I couldn't care less what laws the North Korean government passes attempting to distort reality

This is their constitution?

> That's not what determines what reality is.

No offense but I believe you are going out of you way to ignore parts of my argument. No one is saying you cannot challenge the North. But *the place to do that is in the body of the article*. Right? Genabab (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Me disagreeing is not the same thing as not listening. Hereditary is not mentioned "in passing", it's actually in the title and whole point of the source I gave you. Wikipedia does not abandon our sourcing policies when it comes to infobox. Our content standards apply everywhere in the article. You will have to point to what you think supports your claim to the contrary, because it's unclear what you're talking about. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

> Me disagreeing is not the same thing as not listening

I didn't say it was. But I did point out: "For a fair analysis, sure. This is a good way of doing things. But when you're looking at, legally speaking, what something is. It makes sense to look at these primary sources. The arguments against that and de facto situation come later, in the body of the article."

If you then say "that's not what determines what's going on" then you are unfortunately ignoring what I said.

> Hereditary is not mentioned "in passing", it's actually in the title and whole point of the source I gave you.

I was more reffering to User:Horse Eye's Back.

> You will have to point to what you think supports your claim to the contrary

I will reiterate that this was said near the exact start. A secondary source, from a reliable place (i.e. encyclopaedia Britannica) describes the DPRK as such. Genabab (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly does it describe it as such? The article doesn't mention heredity or dictatorship anywhere.

https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Korea

Or is Wikipedia just blatantly taking the same positions as the US state department for some unfathomable reasons? Himanshu.cracked (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia infoboxes do not reflect de jure positions; they reflect what reliably sourced content in the article body states. You can argue there's a bias to it, because the sources in English language media deemed reliable by the Wikipedia community collectively in past discussions tend to be mainstream press from the U.S. and Europe. However, that's a completely different discussion. Yue🌙 00:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but we are only looking at it encyclopedically speaking. We aren't a court or legal organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hereditary dictatorship" is only one description of the government.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking

@Huic2856: As per MOS:SOB, links should not be placed next to each other such that they appear to be a single link - this is a usability issue for readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request - Thu. September 21st, 2023

North Korea is technically a communist Stalinist state. Could you please add that to its “Politics and Government” section? 174.165.213.3 (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a reliable source for that claim. Yue🌙 05:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Qalso north Korea has very low freedom and it is one of the most strict countries in the world as you can not watch any movie or TV show and there is only wifi for a few hours before the electricity goes out and there is only one Chanel and the Chanel is completely government controlled and the Chanel is all about praising Korea and the festivals are all about the army 105.183.105.138 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is all pretty well known. What's your point? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

there is a grammar mistake Remagamer (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Remagamer: Can specify where it is? Liu1126 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2023 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Government Type Infobox

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.

---

In the infobox, we are currently using totalitarian dictatorship. However, we do have reliable sources that use the term "absolute monarchy" and "Stalinist dictatorship" in the actual article as well. Is there a particularly compelling reason for keeping totalitarian dictatorship? I understand some may have strong feelings on this, but at the end of the day WP:SYNTH needs to be avoided. Sagflaps (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am an advocate to keep this field of country infoboxes confined to the structure of government and leave characterizations to the body entirely. I think the reader should at a glance know whether a government unitary, federal, prime minister or president, how many legislative houses etc.

In the earlier discussion, I stated that one reason I like leaving characterizations for the body is that there are sources for so many characterizations, a focus on the forms and structures of government in the infobox may avoid arguments. I made a comment like, ‘what’s to happen when someone decides they have a source for Stalinist dictatorship’, so it’s a bit funny to see your comment. This is why I like de jure forms for the infobox.

My preference continues to be phrases like “under a … (characterization)” out of the infobox.

The more abstract or figurative or interpretive the language, the worse it is. So just like “hereditary” is quite bad because it’s really describing the cross-generational concentration of power within the Kim family (what titles are heritable? What are the rules of their heredity? partition? Primogeniture?) “absolute monarchy” is even worse.

“Stalinist” is perhaps a bit worse than the current “totalitarian” but again in my view none of the adjectives are good for the infobox. This sort of gloss can go in article bodies where it can be explained and attributed as necessary. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You raise the issue of sources too. If it’s sourced and accorded due weight, of course it’s appropriate for the body. I’m taking a sharp focus on the infobox. My previously suggested version is supported by Britannica, in any case. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All very well sourced....pls no guess work. This country is the main example of a totalitarian dictatorship in the form of an absolute monarchy. We should simply say what sources say."North Korea: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report". Freedom House. North Korea is a one-party state led by a dynastic totalitarian dictatorship... Moxy- 15:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this is appropriate for discussion in the body, for the sake of avoiding guess work. Sagflaps (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is why my focus on this discussion is cabined in terms of placement in the infobox, and using a concrete description of government that minimizes characterizations and adjectives. There are many sources and many characterizations. You have cited an NGO. I have cited the classic English-language an encyclopedia: "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house." You evoke simply saying what sources say. Mine is another example of what sources say, and indeed it's more concrete, less guesswork. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What we are looking for is the best sources not just tertiary source such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. So like other articles within this scope (Russia or Afghanistan)...lets give our readers the most info we can.... not hide it in the body... lets link for research purposes as we do with other articles. Moxy- 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not hidden in the body, references to totalitarian dictatorship are easy to find in the body without scrolling very much at all. Sagflaps (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, as a general note, Freedom House is an American organization who receives significant funding from the US Department of State. While I'm sure it's generally reliable, in this particular case it definitely requires extra scrutiny since its editorial independence could reasonably be challenged when it comes to North Korea. That said, there are plenty of other sources cited in the article, which is why I'm just noting this generally. Sagflaps (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am for removing speculative discussions from the info box and leaving them in the article. I agree with Sagflaps about Freedom House, at best anything from them deserves attribution.Stix1776 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Best we start an RFC see if others think it's best we don't follow sources. Moxy- 05:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we don't follow sources Moxy. What I am suggesting is that the due weight be given to reliable sources that use other descriptions of the government. Sagflaps (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why Freedom House is receiving so much focus here, as if it is one of the primary or only sources describing the DPRK government as "totalitarian". Yue🌙 05:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thousands of sources out there.....not sure why this is a problem. Is there any source that don't call this a totalitarian regime? Moxy- 06:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, for example I keep going back to Britannica which also does not put such characterizations into its infobox. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

NGL I wasnt aware that there were other, non Freedom House sources for "totalitarian". Still, I think that JArthur makes a good point. I'm not seeing other articles with similar categories in their infobox, such as Saudi Arabia. I do support having an RFC to close this issue entirelyStix1776 (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I haven't opened an RFC on it is because from past talk page discussions, it seems like the kind of thing that can easily turn into editors engaging in advocacy or accusing each other of propaganda. And I don't want to be the person who starts something like that. Sagflaps (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The direction of current discussion and edits suggest a change of consensus. An RfC may of course be a good idea, but 'that ball appears to be in the other court' for the time being. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears many of the editors who have been adding things in the past were doing so for advocacy reasons. Which is fine in the sense that editors are allowed to have opinions, but many here seem to think that the pro-American world view on issues is the absolute truth. If it matters at all, I'm saying this is as an American editor with no personal interests beyond WP:GLOBAL. Sagflaps (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Russia or Afghanistan). Moxy- 14:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Cuba China Vietnam Laos. Some have suggested the addition of Juche in the past, but there wasn't a consensus to do that. Either way I'm generally of the opinion that we should evaluate each country individually. Sagflaps (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok I think we have somthing odd going on here February 6, 2024 Moxy- 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency across Wikipedia, should “totalitarian” be removed from the infoboxes of other (past and present) regimes that are (usually/often/widely, etc.) considered totalitarian, if the consensus here is that it does not belong? ZFT (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Best to bring such discussions up on a page by page basis. Otherwise discussions tend to spiral. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The only guidance is MOS:INFOBOX, which doesn't give many clear answers besides what is effectively "less is more". Sagflaps (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Most sources define the political system in the country as a totalitarian state (e.g. [7],[8],[9],[10],[11]). Hence it should be described accordingly in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• In addition, that was a long-standing consensus version. Please do not change it without getting consensus on article talk page. To establish such consensus, please start an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't. People have been debating over it since at least 2018. I don't think that is enough justification to edit war further. The vast majority of edits have been "drive-by" editors, who didn't discuss their change. Sagflaps (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The sources My very best wishes posted do not call "totalitarian" a system of government.Stix1776 (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, of course they call it a totalitarian regime and explain why (see quotations in RfC below). My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Hereditary Dictatorship take 2

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.

---

It appears there was a discussion in August over the use of hereditary dictatorship. The discussion mostly devolved into a debate over what is propaganda what isn't, which I'm not here to discuss. Generally, this is English Wikipedia so people here will have a bias towards western points of view. Rather, it seems like some reliable sources use hereditary dictatorship and others do not or use other terminology, so that sort of discussion should occur in the article body rather than the infobox. However I'm more than willing to hear opposing viewpoints. However, please keep in mind WP:GLOBAL is a consideration when editing topics like this. Also, some have suggested that I find the content offensive and therefore I am removing it for that reason. I am not. Neither do I have any affiliations with North Korea or other socialist countries. Sagflaps (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion suffered for a lack of focus.

The discrete question is whether the “government” field should include “hereditary dictatorship.”

This is not a characterization suitable for conclusion as a matter of Wikivoice in the infobox.

It is fair game for the body of the article, where characterizations can be attributed and distinctions between de jure government and de facto concentrations of power can be addressed with clarity. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would we not list the type of government as we do with outher countries? This country is literally the example of this type of government. Do we have sources that say otherwise?Moxy- 23:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: My issue is that it contradicts with the body. If you read into the body, you will see the language hereditary dictatorship, absolute monarchy, Stalinist dictatorship. The CIA's world factbook, which is quite obviously biased against NK, calls it "dictatorship, single-party state; official state ideology of "Juche" or "national self-reliance". It doesn't use the term hereditary dictatorship. So in those situations, it is fair to leave those determinations in the body for the reader to come to their own conclusions instead of synthesizing the sources ourselves. Sagflaps (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no contradiction follow the links. Moxy- 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the proposal -- "Unitary one-party socialist republic."

A nice example source here is how Britannica approaches it in the Britannica "infobox": "unitary single-party republic with one legislative house (Supreme People’s Assembly)" JArthur1984 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think best use academic sources over terrestrial sources. Moxy- 04:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, but the lead/infobox should be a synopsis of the body, and the body as it stands makes mention of many different characterizations of the government in this regard, as I talked about above. So for us to choose our most preferred characterization mostly makes for original research as the body of the article currently stands. Sagflaps (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to this. The sources don't call North Korea a "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship". So far a majority of editors in this discussion (3 vs 2), are asking for a removal. This is maddening that such a large body of editors can be against its inclusion (ie not consensus), yet it's pushed and edit warred to be included.Stix1776 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Its not a vote. Best look for sources over guess work...

• >Wu, Y.; Livescu, S.; Scott, R.; Slyomovics, S.; Di Stefano, E.; Taleghani, R.S.; Williams, P.F. (2011). Human Rights, Suffering, and Aesthetics in Political Prison Literature. Lexington Books. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-7391-6742-7. North Korea, the iron-curtained socialist state that has been dominated and terrorized by a totalitarian, hereditary dictatorship for several decadesMoxy- 15:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of sources which call it a hereditary dictatorship (example [12]) but I would agree that the addition of "totalitarian" is redundant as all dictatorships are totalitarian. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

We should say what type of dictatorship...Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian(very different 'read me) and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies." Moxy- 15:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet I can find any number of sources which refer to North Korea as authoritarian... As much as I wish wikipedia was a polisci journal it isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The conversation seems to be veering off-topic a bit, so please keep in mind the original point. This is that while there are reliable sources in favor of hereditary dictatorship, there are other sources that say other things as well (as evidenced when you read the article). I'm trying to keep this discussion on the original issue instead of going off on a tangent as happened in the last discussion. Sagflaps (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I say fallow sources...no guess work Freedom House. Moxy- 22:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but in the case of different sources characterizing the country in different ways, this discussion should be happening in the body of the article where we can explain it in long form, and not in the infobox. Generally, I don't it is proper for us as Wikipedia editors to take a position on matter. Instead, we explain what different sources say (as the body currently does), and allow the reader to decide for themselves how the country should be characterized. Sagflaps (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

We say..."North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family." The short for of this statement (used in all sources presented thus far and ones in the lead) is a "dynastic/ hereditary totalitarian dictatorship". This terminology has been used for decades to describe the country even in the media by academics....likeClemens, Walter C. Jr. (2011-11-04). "Listening to the Axis of Evil". The New York Times. The North is ruled by a totalitarian dynastic dictatorship.... Moxy- 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying that there doesn't exist sources in favor of hereditary dictatorship, just that if you read the bottom paragraph of that section where it actually mentions the words hereditary dictatorship, it is described in far less authoritative terms than is used in the infobox, and mentions other characterizations of the government by other sources. As it is stands right now, to make an actual decision in this regard would require us to weigh the political merits of the claims, which has not led to productive conversations in the past and is basically just original research. Sagflaps (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nor sure what your saying.... the article body describes all three of these points...that is a dictatorship totalitarianism and dynastic. Doing so in great detail using a multitude of terms that all describe the three main points. Can you quote from the article what your referring to? Moxy- 02:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not sourced directly, and you're edit warring to keep it against a majority of editors. Stix1776 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly sourced and has been restore to the long standing version by 4 diffent editors ( including myself ). ....vs it's bold removal despite the edit note by 1 editor multiple times and one other editor. If you wish to form a new consensus a new RFC would need to take place at this point...... or at the very least new sources for a change. Moxy- 04:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the issue is that you're throwing around all these phrases as if they all are just essentially the same thing. Anyways, it's not that hard to CTRL+F, search for "hereditary dictatorship", and come to the conclusion that how we are currently using it in the article doesn't support its inclusion in the infobox. Sagflaps (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I've dug through many many pages of archives, and it appears that there never was a formal consensus on the talk page in favor of hereditary dictatorship in the first place, it was added by users User:Vulcan300 and User:BakedGoods357, unilaterally. When the note was added to not change without consensus, another editor had also unilaterally restored the version with hereditary dictatorship after the note was added. Sagflaps (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So your POV over someone like Walter Clemens POV....sure your doing right by our readers by blanking source content for the 4th time? Moxy- 14:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You're going too far, nobody is going to take you seriously if these are the sorts of arguments you make. People are going to think you're either incompetent or trolling and I'm sure you don't want that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What we have is a new account removing sourced content based on their POV with no sources and ignoring academic publications that can educate our readers. WE have block many here for the same thing for years. Moxy- 14:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring them, because this is a discussion about what should go in the infobox specifically, which is an area where there is limited space and we can't write a whole paragraph about what various different sources say. It appears this discussion has run its course. I don't think anyone is going to come to any further understanding by continuing this conversation. I just feel like I'm repeating the same things over and over again really. Sagflaps (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree there are many different descriptions of NK's government. Hereditary dictatorship is just one of them and it doesn't belong in the infobox. It can be discussed in the body of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Will fix article so those not familiar with term can understand. Will propose changes here. Moxy- 13:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I fear we bog down in disagreements whose scope exceed the discrete question -- what belongs next to the "government" field in infobox. We should simply describe the form of government and leave the characterizations to the body. There is not, and will never be, room for every characterization supported by sources to fit. To give just one example, an editor not participating on talk wanted to add "under totalitarian dictatorship." What happens when an editor decides "Stalinist" is supported by sources and should be jammed into the infobox as well. Let's stick to the basics as there is plenty of talk in the article to encompass characterizations. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is why it needs to be more clear... "Stalinist" is a type/style of totalitarian. Its clear that its not clear to all as seen by this talk The article is talking about the types of totalitarian people have used to describe this form of goverment.Moxy- 13:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the issue I notice. Dealing with the issue in this manner will never lead to a consensus as we have a situation where many reliable sources use different descriptions, and limited infobox space. Just looking around, even a source like the CIA world factbook which would be slanted in favor of a US point of view stops short of calling the DPRK a totalitarian dictatorship. There other sources which do, but that's besides the point when that can be discussed in the body. Sagflaps (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Korean Wikipedia, for example, uses the terminology "Unitary state, unicameral system, republican system, collective leadership system" or "단일국가, 단원제, 공화제, 집단지도체제" in the original Korean. While I'm not suggesting that we cite another language edition of Wikipedia, I was generally interested in seeing how other encyclopedias handle it, and Korean Wikipedia editors will probably have greater knowledge of the subject. Sagflaps (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we follow their lead and include multiple but separated by commas? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No Sagflaps (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The last time we had multiple terminology it was ridiculous. There was a long string of verbiage. The longer it was the more inclined were editors to add more.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We should simply follow the example used in all the other totalitarian states..... especially considering this is the main example thatt every source about the topic uses in our time. Not sure why it should be different here.Moxy- 03:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

List of totalitarian regimes if you want to quickly look through it Sagflaps (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The articles for most of those regimes have “totalitarian” in the infobox. For the sake of consistency, shouldn’t the same be true for this article’s infobox as well (regardless of whether or not the regime also classifies as a hereditary dictatorship)? ZFT (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I should have scrolled down a bit further before commenting. ZFT (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2024 (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.

History

Do we really need the entire history of all of Korea in this article? We have discussed this before, but it seems to keep on being added back. I think it's time for an RfC. Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the articles for North Korea and South Korea should both start from the "Modern history" sections, and all the histories prior to their foundation should be at Korea § History. The scope of each article should be about their respective sovereign states, not the Korean nation or geographical region.

The scopes are dissimilar to those of other articles like China and Japan because North Korea and South Korea are fractured and smaller versions of previous Korean states. The history content that predates the states' foundings do not specifically talk about developments in the northern or southern half of Korea, so it confuses the readers into believing that history that happened in a South Korean city happed in present-day North Korea, or that those past polities were also divided along the DMZ, etc.

The only way the status quo would make sense is if we pretend that both Koreas, at the same time, are the continuators of all of Korea, as both governments contend. Yue🌙 05:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is harm in some earlier history, which does help explain how the polity got to where it is today, but as is common for country article history sections both are simply too long. CMD (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be enough pre-founding history to establish the background for the states' foundings. I would argue that the proper starting point then would be the late decline of Joseon and the establishment of the Korean Empire, or even later at the Japanese occupation of Korea. Yue🌙 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed too long. Given how all of those responding to you on talk generally agree thus far, perhaps it would be more efficient to begin making the edits in a wp:BeBold style. Rather than the bureaucratic RfC. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I ventured some initial edits along these lines. I would suggest further cuts as well. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed all the history up to 1945. A reader interested in the earlier history can look elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how blanking helps our readers at all. Lead, infobox, culture section no longer follow the history section. This format is not the norm in anyway. Think best we lead our readers to the history of the country here....as we do with every other country. Moxy- 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Corea del Norte" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Corea del Norte has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Corea del Norte until a consensus is reached. Prodraxis _(talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)