Talk:North Korea

Communist state

This article should be updated to remove all references to NK as a communist state, outside of historical discussion. The constitution was amended in 2009 to change the political basis from Marxism-Leninism to songun (military first). It is, even by its own description, a military state rather than a communist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.216.123 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, for all intents and purposes, still a communist state, whatever they call it in their constitution. To call it a military state because of the Songun policy is just plain wrong.--Atlan (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Militarism and communism are not mutually exclusive; the North Korean 'constitution' itself is little more than a propaganda tool that has little bearing on how the country itself is actually ruled. North Korea is very much a totalitarian, militaristic communist country with an extremely powerful and extensive personality cult around the leader. All these regime-type adjectives are applicable to the North Korean state. The Way (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is some logic not to call it "Communist" for several reasons. First of all, a centrally planned economy, authoritarian rule and a single-party system don't make a country Communist. A Communist state is one that defines itself as pursuing Communism through a certain set of organisational ideas or that claims to have achieved it; North Korea is neither of those. Furthermore Juche and Songun could be viewed as Socialist ideologies, but they're not in any case Communist. And finally, not all property in North Korea is public; there are some private enterprises; their society is not in any case classless, and, as I mentioned, their guiding ideologies rather emphasize nationalism and self-reliance than proletarian struggle, internationalism or such. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tourbillon. If they're no longer pursuing the communist ideal, they're no longer communist. Totalitarian socialist, perhaps. --Leodmacleod (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They could easily be qualified as a "Socialist state" under some form, but "Communist state" is definitely not an appropriate definition. Yet we need to wait for other opinions, there could be some debate for this.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should refere the to the country as a former socialist/communist state and presently a dictatorship or a monarch system like government. You can say many things, but these guys were communists, but not any longer. --TIAYN (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with dictatorship, but I'd wait until Kim Jung-Il passes leadership to a relative before declaring it a real monarchy. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is "Socialist state". The DPRK has many features of one - strong state control over the economy and an "Iron rice bowl"-type of social policy, as a examples. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The article calls it a "Juche" state - that's another made up word self-applied by North Korea. I suspect there's no shortage of reliable sources that describe it as a "communist dictatorship". Rklawton (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire 'debate' about whether the DPRK is 'communist' 'socialist' 'Jucheist' or 'Monarchist' smacks of an arm chair debate amongst overly subjective & somewhat ideologically defensive leftist theoreticians,and actualy has no place influencing the presentation of fact in an article on a country in Wikipedia.Rather the countries self description should prevail,and separate wiki articles on the political terms used would suffice to cover any 'theoretical controversies'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adawablk (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much North Korea's position. We, on the other hand, tend to go with reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to this debate, I remember reading in the excellebnt "North Korea: Through the Looking Glass", that Karl Marx's works are banned in the country. I doubt you can be described as communist in this case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.111.59 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea doesn't act like a communist state in several key ways, though it's difficult to overlook the similarities. For example, the means of production are state owned. The state is military-first. Leadership is dictatorial. That much just screams "communist". However, their depiction of Americans as hook-nosed monsters is nearly identical to last century's antisemitic propaganda. This gives North Korea a more national-socialist-fascist (Nazi) aura than anything else. In direct contrast to communism and not counting re-unification goals with the south, state policy isn't expansionist (they have no desire for anyone else to follow their "Dear Leader"). They'd much rather be left alone. North Korea is highly xenophobic (reminiscent of pre-war Japan) and touts the moral superiority of their pure Korean blood (at least internally). These positions are diametrically opposed to communism. Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. I believe that all of the terms you have touched on (communism, militarism, Stalinism, and nationalism) could be applied to North Korea, and have played a part in shaping the ruling regime's government. I've also heard it described as a Rogue state due to its utter self reliance policy (internally called "Juche"). Time will only tell if it can remain in uneasy equilibrium, or if recent events (See ROKS Cheonan sinking) will cause it to crumble due to external and internal belligerent pressure....--Gniniv (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be clarified in a general discussion what is meant by describing a state as communist, nationalist, republic, kingdom, or whatever. Is this designation intended to reflect the respective goverment's wording, the de-facto style of government, or what? If we say that we describe the de-facto government style, then (if it becomes clear that Kim Jong-Un will be the next head of state) then it may well be appropriate to call North Korea a de-facto absolute hereditary monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.185.126.78 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is one sided

This whole article is one sided pro DPRK. There is nothing mentioned about the poverty of people living there.

This article looks like a DPRK guided propaganda tour of North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.36.77 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

your precise concerns being what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the country in general, it's entire history, geography etc etc. I think almost every section within the article has a corresponding main article which describes each subject in detail. So, essentially this article should be a collection of the leads from those detailed articles. The Economy section contains HDI and GDP per capita data and there is a whole section on their food production problems. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article is ridiculously pro-North Korea. The New York Times just published a recent article showing how miserable and what an enormous failure this country is. It is clearly a FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.28.14 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IP editor's sentiments carry a strong United States POV. Judging by your use of 4chan vocabulary, I doubt that you are actually a Professor of Economics or something similar; you will have to provide reliable sources to back up your claims, to avoid unwanted original research. Assuming that the IP editor has never been to North Korea before, simply stating an opinion based on what you might have heard does not mean that it is absolutely verifiable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can identify things you think are not properly supported or are inappropriate, please remove them by all means. If you think you have some supported and appropriate information to add to the article, please add it. It's difficult to improve the article without identifying specific problems, if you can help to do that hopefully a more balanced article will result. TastyCakes (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguing whether a country is failing is not WP:NPOV. Arguing whether a country is successful is also not WP:NPOV. An encyclopedic article should stick to the hard facts when it comes to geography, politics, demographics, and not have to incorporate external opinions from here and there. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper editorial. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't properly identify his issues with the article. Maybe he was basing his opinion on a misunderstanding of what makes a good Wikipedia article, but without specifics we can't be sure. Also, please don't bite the newbies. TastyCakes (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO the article is well sourced and balanced.--Ssavilam (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the economic section - there is no mention made of rampant starvation, the fact that most of the country exists without electricity, or that most N. Korean industry either sits idle or makes products no one wants. Cell phone use is cited as an example of N. Korea's wonderful growth and modernization - how about comparing cell phone ownership/usage rates with S. Korea and China? Why is there no mention whatsoever at the inability of the N. Korean government to provide even the most basic needs of its citizens, and procluding individual efforts for meeting those needs, so that there is the starvation mentioned before as well as repeated attempts by many to leave the country, in spite of grave repercussions to those who make the attempt and their families. The tone of the economy section makes N. Korea sound like a really wonderful place, but the data used to make this assumption comes soley from a biased data from within N. Korea and has no counter-balance (FAO uses almost entirely self-reported data). Compare with tone on economy section for US or Brazil - problems are mentioned repeatedly. There is no such counterbalance in the N. Korea article. If this is what passes for Wikipedia's standards, Wikipedia will not continue as a useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.231.42 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of the most one-sided articles on Wikipedia that I have ever read. It is obviously written by/for the DPRK. 173.165.120.65 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Drinking water

Currently the article reads: "Almost 100% of the population has access to water and sanitation, but it is not completely potable." I wonder if there are any data to support this statement, or to further qualify what is meant by "not completely potable". Does anyone have examples of waterborne disease outbreaks in North Korea, or any data on the percentage of the population served by treated water? I can't-unsurprisingly-find anything particularly useful on the internet to back up the statement either way. 2008 census data (reported on here apparently indicates that 85% of the population in North Korea is served by drinking water. This recent report from Amnesty International states that "Oxfam halted its aid operation on clean water in and around the capital Pyongyang because of the difficulties assessing the impact of its aid programme in North Korea". We might suppose that if aid agencies are providing water around the capital, then the drinking water infrastructure is in a very poor state. It also states that health facilities are frequently without running water.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 158.169.131.14, 27 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} the text says "North Korea continues to have strong ties with its socialist southeast Asian allies in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia." Cambodia is not a socialist country 158.169.131.14 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chairman or President of the SPA Presidium?

There seems to be conflicting statements on the title of the presiding officer of the SPA Presidium. The title in the infobox appears as President of the Presidium, where as in the list of heads of state of North Korea, it is Chairman. The Constitution [1] itself has conflicting titles, firstly naming the presiding officer as "President", then going on to say "The SPA shall elect its chairman and vice chairmen. The chairman shall preside over the sessions." Which title should be used?--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Small grammar omission needs correction...

From the lede:

'It is reported as having one of the world's worst human rights records.[23] After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a famine which killed an estimated 2-3 million.'

2-3 million what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.184.139 (talk • contribs) 15:08, August 8, 2010

 Done. Seemed obvious to me that it meant 'people', but I added it anyway. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it was obvious but we shouldn't be asking the reader to make assumptions - especially in the lede. --78.100.235.101 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move to 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'?

Hey there. I'm sure that it would be more fitting to refer to North Korea as DPRK in the opening sentence of the article, as I have done in my recent edit, but I would also see it necessary to move the article to Democratic People's Republic of Korea, even if the rest of the article referred to NK. All other states' respective articles, that I know of, should surely refer to the full title of the country at the article's beginning, and possibly under /wiki/Official_Name? Just a thought · AarnKrry · _{Words speak louder than actions} · 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not be moved. See WP:COMMONNAME and observe the naming of other countries' articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This country is known as North Korea in the English language. It must not be moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• The translation of the official name in English (DPRK) can be in the article, but the common name (in English) must be used according to WP:Common--Gniniv (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am coming at this from a slightly different angle, the need for consistency across Wikipedia for naming conventions on nation-state articles. I have kicked off a discussion about it at the project page and would welcome views. If we use official UN-en names, it's not "North Korea". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe north korea as an absolute monarchy, rather than a dictatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 22, 2010

Got a source to back up calling it a monarchy over a dictatorship? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolute monarchy is a form of dictactorship. Actually, I agree that the term absolute monarchy is quite good here. To be precise, it could be termed a hereditary, absolute monarchy, as the son of the leader is the next in position to take over. While socalled constitutional monarchies, like my own country, Norway, are de facto republics, North-Korea, while being a republic on the paper, is a de facto monarchy. --Oddeivind (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung passed power to his son Kim-jung il. and he plans to pass power to his son Jong Un. that sounds like an absolute monarchy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, his title wasn't King or Emperor. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But the passing of power if essense of monarchy and so tied very well to the article IMO. The situation is almost the same as in Syria. I dont know if North Korea should be called a monarchy but it does fufill well the shape of a monarchy.--Ssavilam (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Sports Section of North Korea

Recently an addition has been made to the wikipedia article "Sports in North Korea" under the section of "Domestic Football". The addition reads as followed:

In September 2010, the first official friendly match between a domestic football team and a foreign club took place in the Kim Il-Sung Stadium. In these two matches Singapore-based "German All Stars" (GAS) played two matches against the 2nd and 3rd team of Pyongyang. The matches ended 1-0 respectively 4-2 for the Korean side. GAS Midfielder Matthias Bertl became the first German footballer to ever score a goal in the DPRK and also the first ever to score two goals. Further first-time records were set by Rene Schieber with the first ever shot on goal by a German footballer and Hendrik Bohne being the first footballer to nutmeg a DPRK player during an official match. As part of the team Simone Magnani become the first ever Italian to play a friendly in the DPRK. The Team was led by Florian Schmidt as the Captain for the opening match and consisted further of Steffen Schacher, Ingo Hartmann, Joerg Buenzel, Dr. Hermann Bergmann, Denis Mecklenburg, Philipp von Pein, Helge Muenkel and Thomas Berner in addition to previous mentioned players.

This addition is referring to the first official friendly match between a foreign team and a domestic football team and was conceived by the North Korean site as a very important gesture of friendship - especially in times of rising sanctions that mainly effect the people of the DPRK rather than the government.

We therefore would like to request to add this section to the sports section of the article "North Korea" to show that there is in fact interaction with outside countries besides the Olympics, World Cup (Qualifiers) and other official tournaments which shall have a signaling effect to all readers.

Thank you very much for your consideration

HBohne (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Pyongyang but a temporary capital??

According to the Temporary capital article...

[The] DPRK considers Pyongyang its temporary capital, as the de jure capital designated in its constitution is Seoul.

Is this view correct? If so, is it worth mentioning it in this article?

Well, North Korea's 1972 constitution says... (according to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea_(1972) )

CHAPTER VII. EMBLEM, FLAG, ANTHEM AND CAPITAL

Article 166. The capital of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is Pyongyang.

but the constitution has been revised in 1992 and 1998...KPUFFERFİSH^Ṫ•Ċ 09:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. The Constitution on WIkisource looks like the current issue. The info about the revisions is background. Why don't you go to Temporary capital and delete? (WP:BB)--S. Rich (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone could add the famous light picture taken form sapce of North Korea and south korea,

the article would look much better. I have the image, but do not know anything about formatting it. The article is defintiely improving since IK last saw it, by the way, well done.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that already in the economy section ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's just on the right in North Korea#Economy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, didn't catch it. Cheers.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Error regarding "relations"

Why show a photo from 2002, i.e. almost a decade ago, when Putin met the dictator Kim? And, as for recent years and given the situation today, it's wrong to say that North Korea has any close relations to Russia - besides, of course, being geographical neighbours. Before the fully justified editing the presented information in the beginning of the section seemed quite biased and gave wrong information about the relations between N.K. and other countries, in this case N.K. and Russia. For example - why not a picture of Kim meeting his South Korean or Chinese counterparts? Note: Any further act to change this is going to be seen as vandalism, and an attempt to falsify the actual political situation. But feel free to update the information in line with the actual and current situation in the relationship-question, and with the above said in mind. One may also note that the actual relationships with the former Eastern block is mentioned in the next sentence; one way to go with the photo-issue could be to insert a picture of a N.K-leader meeting a Chinese or Soviet leader in the old days, when the relationship actually was a strong one - today N.K. is quite isolated; even the sole undisputable international 'partner' today, China, is sometimes of different opinion than the regime in N.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't threaten to mark something as vandalism; that's disruptive editing and can get you blocked. One of the reasons we use that image is because we don't have images of the other scenarios you've given. And that's not an excuse to go uploading images of them - at least, not unless you can find one that fulfills licensing issues. We take what we can get here, and that's all we've got. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

North Korean literature

Maybe some information on North Korean Literature should be inserted? Or at least there should be short section with a link to the wikipage "North Korean Literature"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhellotomylittlefriend (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Juche - A one word change

This isn't a big deal, but the article is locked, so I can't do anything about it. There is a sentence in the opening paragraph that reads: "The country's government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, developed by the country's former President, Kim Il-Sung." The main article on Juche however, in the section "criticism" states "...Juche is nothing but a sham developed to establish Kim Il-sung as a political thinker alongside Mao Zedong." with reasons for this given afterwords.

I think it would be a good idea to perhaps say "The country's government claims to follow the Juche ideology..." or maybe "The country's government purportedly follows the Juche ideology..."

Small change, but I can't do it, and in the name of accuracy, I think it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.225.227 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. Kim Il Sung came up with juche and made the country follow it, and you want to write that the country claims to follow it? It doesn't matter what the juche article says in its criticism section; the country's policy is juche. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)