Jump to content

Talk:North Korea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
re0opened discussion, discussion was not appropriately closed, and the closer is an interested party to the discussion, the result is also closer to no consensus than "overwhelming" this is not a vote
Line 45: Line 45:


== Should we use juche in the infobox? ==
== Should we use juche in the infobox? ==
{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/192.44.242.19|192.44.242.19]] ([[User talk:192.44.242.19|talk]]) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) }}
<nowiki>{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/192.44.242.19|192.44.242.19]] ([[User talk:192.44.242.19|talk]]) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) }}
</nowiki>

===Survey===
===Survey===
*'''Support''' inclusion of juche in the infobox, which helps the reader. [[User:Ukrainetz1|Ukrainetz1]] ([[User talk:Ukrainetz1|talk]]) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' inclusion of juche in the infobox, which helps the reader. [[User:Ukrainetz1|Ukrainetz1]] ([[User talk:Ukrainetz1|talk]]) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Line 82: Line 82:
:::::: oh now i get it i was confused but now i know why this happened see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, it is the standard formula to rfc i simply copied to help me but did not remember to change it completely [[User:Ukrainetz1|Ukrainetz1]] ([[User talk:Ukrainetz1|talk]]) 11:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::: oh now i get it i was confused but now i know why this happened see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, it is the standard formula to rfc i simply copied to help me but did not remember to change it completely [[User:Ukrainetz1|Ukrainetz1]] ([[User talk:Ukrainetz1|talk]]) 11:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Keep plugging away. All this editing stuff is still far too complex, and I really appreciate you taking the time to give it a try. Remember, at any point at all, you're free to ask for assistance. You can even do it right in your RfC (or other talk page comments). For example, "I'm not sure if I'm doing this right..." or "Would someone help me with formatting..." etc. We're really glad to see new editors taking an interest, and many of us are quite willing to help out. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 16:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Keep plugging away. All this editing stuff is still far too complex, and I really appreciate you taking the time to give it a try. Remember, at any point at all, you're free to ask for assistance. You can even do it right in your RfC (or other talk page comments). For example, "I'm not sure if I'm doing this right..." or "Would someone help me with formatting..." etc. We're really glad to see new editors taking an interest, and many of us are quite willing to help out. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 16:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== North Korea vs. DPRK ==
== North Korea vs. DPRK ==

Revision as of 11:48, 27 December 2016

Template:Vital article


Contradictions on hdi

there are two very contradictory reports regarding the DPRK hdi. One is the one from algora publishing presently mentioned in this article. the other is the 1998 U.N report mentioned in the 2009 version hdi a wiki article which states a far higher hdi of 0.766. Which one is correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index_(2009)#Countries_missing_from_latest_report

Should we use juche in the infobox?

{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox. [[Special:Contributions/192.44.242.19|192.44.242.19]] ([[User talk:192.44.242.19|talk]]) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) }}

Survey

Unitary socialist republic one-party state
Totalitarian dictatorship
Chris vLS (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
resolute no even if i want to include juche in the infobox your "compromise" makes it worse (alot worse) id rather link socialist republic to socialist republic the way it is now Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It should be in the infobox, and link to the C-class article Juche Adotchar| reply here 10:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportsummoned by bot So I don't know much about North Korea (read: I don't know anything about North Korea), and so I think this term, which actually says a lot about the unitary ideology that the government operates under, should be included in the info box. In the comments it seems clear that other single ideology state articles do something similar so it's not without precedent. But most importantly, I think it would help the readers (like me) who come to this page and can actually learn more easily. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If it's their state ideology, then it's their state ideology. It should be in the infobox with a wikilink to its article at Juche. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is about the |government_type = parameter, which the infobox template says is "

    often a compound multi-wikilinked term, e.g. 'Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic', etc)

    ". The current version does this while restraining from enumerating tangential topics such as ideologies. There isn't a single reliable source that would say that the type of government of North Korea is "Juche", and misconstruing it as such is blatant WP:SYNTH. Please stick to what reliable sources define the country's type of government as. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - this article has been using juche one party state since the article's creation so it tells how much consensus it has, just see ANY article about a former or currebt one party state and you will see it has "insert ideology" one party in its infobox, also juche one party state IS a form of government see Politics of North Korea intro: "The politics of North Korea takes place within the framework of the official state philosophy, Juche, a concept created by Hwang Chang-yŏp and later attributed to Kim Il-sung. In practice, North Korea functions as a one-party state under a totalitarian family dictatorship, described even as an absolute monarchy with Kim Il-sung and his heirs as its rulers."
    the ideology of the one party state defines what government and politics it has, for example one party state nazi germany and one party vietnam hardly is the same political system it is evident in its constitution its laws and it political foundations, if we cant use juche in the infobox then we cant really use "socialist" or "totalitarian" because those are also ideological terms Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportOwenBlacker (Talk) 13:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What leadership says and what leadership does are two different things. By including "Juche" in the infobox, we are furthering propaganda and not illuminating reality. As an encyclopedia, we should illuminate reality. Rklawton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including juche in the infobox, as it is the official ideology of the state. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a socio-political ideology; it does not belong in either the government type or state religion infobox parameters. This is another case of trying to shoehorn every possible detail one can get away with into an infobox, which defeats the purpose of infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support i agree with Dimadick 192.44.242.19 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • I have concerns about this photograph. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of concerns? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • this article has been using juche one party state almoust from the article's creation so it tells how much consensus it has, just see ANY article about a former one party state and you will see it has "insert ideology" one party in its infobox, also juche one party state IS a form of government see Politics of North Korea intro: "The politics of North Korea takes place within the framework of the official state philosophy, Juche, a concept created by Hwang Chang-yŏp and later attributed to Kim Il-sung. In practice, North Korea functions as a one-party state under a totalitarian family dictatorship, described even as an absolute monarchy with Kim Il-sung and his heirs as its rulers."
        • the ideology of the one party state defines what government and politics it has, for example one party state nazi germany and one party vietnam hardly is the same political system it is evident in its constitution its laws and it political foundations, if we cant use juche in the infobox then we cant really use "socialist" or "totalitarian" because those are also ideological terms Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make the RFC more specific? Please specify the parameter in the infoxbox to which you are referring.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very strange RfC. What were the comments on the photograph about?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is Ukrainetz1 apparently having a conversation with himself? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

am not someone placed my text diffrenly as it was from the original Ukrainetz1 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh now i get it i was confused but now i know why this happened see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, it is the standard formula to rfc i simply copied to help me but did not remember to change it completely Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plugging away. All this editing stuff is still far too complex, and I really appreciate you taking the time to give it a try. Remember, at any point at all, you're free to ask for assistance. You can even do it right in your RfC (or other talk page comments). For example, "I'm not sure if I'm doing this right..." or "Would someone help me with formatting..." etc. We're really glad to see new editors taking an interest, and many of us are quite willing to help out. Rklawton (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea vs. DPRK

Why does this article use the informal derogatory term North Korea rather than the official title, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Rhemmiel (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably to do with WP:COMMONNAME. Cesdeva (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses both. If you are referring to the title of the article, then yes, WP:COMMONNAME applies. Also, I don't see how North Korea is particularly derogatory, any more that North Dakota.- MrX 12:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanism

Would it be possible to mention sultanism in the government section of the infobox? 50.92.18.181 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This description has been used by only a few scholars.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

It has grown quite large. Suggestions on what might be trimmed ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At a readable prose size of 75 kB, this article is above "> 60 kB[:] Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" but below "> 100 kB[:] Almost certainly should be divided" (WP:SIZESPLIT). I'd say a country article can be assumed to have large scope. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, I don't see why we need so much history before 1945. No one comes here to read about ancient Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point, Jack Upland, and I think we could do something about it even before we hit a critical page size. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]