Talk:North Korea

NGC discoveries

May be you can get some info from here -

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3089/Overview

Should at least link.

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)

As I mention above, there is no doubt that North-Korea is a de facto absolute monarchy, although formally (de jure) it is a republic. In fact you also have several examples of the contrary, that is a country that is only formally a (constitutional) monarchy. Constitutional monarchies where the "kings" or "queens" have no power, but are pure symbols, are de facto republics. An example of this is my own country, Norway. Maybe one should differentiate between de facto and de jure form of government? There is hardly any doubt that de facto form of government is what counts. Whether you choose to call the absolute monarch "king" or "president" doesn`t really matter. Kim-jung il is a de facto absolute monarch, while the Norwegian "king" is just a symbol with no power what so ever. --Oddeivind (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

. Point to a reliable source characterizing the country as a monarchy. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to read what other people write before answering. Do you have a reliable source saying that North Korea have more in coomon with a republic like the USA than with (other) absolute monarchies? If not, how can you then classify those two countries together? North-Korea claims to be a republic. East Germany claimed to be a democracy. Does this make it a democracy? The fact that the head of state is a president doesn`t necessarily say anything about the structures of government. --Oddeivind (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the infobox also includes the more apt descriptors "Single-party state" and "Military dictatorship", and the lede gives 3 separate sources supporting the "dictatorship" classification. By contrast, the "socialist republic" description is heavily couched in an "Officially", and aside from some editors' personal opinions, no reliable sources have been presented to support the "monarchy" characterization. FWIW, no, I personally don't think NK is much of a republic, but NPOV dictates that we at least mention the official self-description. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Ruler is pretty much the same thing as King or Emperor. But, Kim's no Augustus Caesar. Nor is he a King Aurthur. 96.244.39.181 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)OctaviusCaesarOF

Can people NOT lie about the contents of their sources?

I just edited 'Religion' section, which contained a phrase that said 'However, the majority of the North Koreans could be described as religious from a sociological viewpoint'. I followed the link given to support this claim, and the link led to a general description of the Korean-American culture, and while it did mention North Korea intermittently, it did NOT make a single reference to North Korean spirituality. I deleted the phrase and the link, leaving the sentence to read something like 'However, traditional religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism still has some impact on North Korean spirituality', which is actually supported by some valid citations.

I don't know what makes people lie through their teeth about the state of religious life in North Korea, but please do not lie about the contents of your sources. Strangely enough, some people seem to be unable to handle the fact that North Korea is irreligious - why would anyone care? (1tephania (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

Can people just say "deleted unsourced claims" and move on? Rklawton (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that this is the result of careless editing, or an honest mistake. Sometimes references get deleted, sometimes the wrong one is given by accident. WP:AGF says we should assume cock-ups rather than conspiracies. Personally, I think the idea that people could be "described as religious from a sociological viewpoint" sounds more like a misunderstanding of what sociology is about than a statement about beliefs in any case. Or to put it another way, it isn't a lie, it is just meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just have a quick temper and get really mad when I perceive people lying about academic facts. Case closed. (1tephania (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

The existence of this article without the emphasis on human rights violations is a disgrace.

Outside of the "Human Rights" and "Personality Cult" section, there is almost no mention of the true, depraved state of this country outside of the following sentence: "Although North Korea is officially a socialist republic, many outside media organizations report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim family and one of the worst human rights records of any country."

If I didn't purposefully opt to search for North Korea, and in the absence of its mentioning, I could believe I was reading of almost any country in the world - this, alone, is a testament to the tone which must be altered to provide substantial footing about the modern state of North Korea. Known for their willful diligence to fabricate facts and figures (which are used in this article in relation to its economic and social prosperity), it is saddening to see so many assertions about North Korea backed up as "fact."

For this article to exist without testimonials and first-hand accounts of human rights violations (including its concentration camps) is a disgrace to humanity and a desecration of the millions of North Koreans who are suffering under the tyranny of the North Korean government.

An entire section dedicated to "tourism?!?" Is that a shameless joke?! North Korea is the physical imagining of Hitler's Third Reich and this website has the audacity to mention places that individuals can travel to have fun in North Korea?

Wiki should exist to detail the facts, and no one should argue against that point, but this isn't a "long ago" theocracy which we can write about with mere mention to its transgressions.

I suggest a wider portion of this article be dedicated to these transgressions, using primary sources and first-hand accounts of North Korea's human rights violations, lifestyle and the culture/motive of the government.

SOURCES:

"Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea" by Barbara Demick, detailed primary sources of life inside of North Korea. Link to book found here: http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives-North/dp/0385523904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292545192&sr=8-1

Kwon Hyuk's witness account of Camp 22, including a gas chamber and experimentation of chemical weapons on North Koreans found here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr_1UNWH-8k

Kim Young-soon witness account of life in a gulag found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html

Kim Young-sam's witness account of life of Camp 14 found here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/North+Korean+gulag+survivor+tells+years+hell/3143911/story.html

Detailed pictures, as well as primary source material regarding Camp 22 found here: http://freekorea.us/2007/02/18/holocaust-now-looking-down-into-hell-at-camp-22/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribledisgrace (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"without the emphasis on human rights violations is a disgrace" Wikipedia tries to be neutral, even in controversial cases; hence, the Tourism and other such sections. However, the very fact that there are dedicated Human Rights and Personality Cult sections in this article and not many others should tell you something.

"without testimonials and first-hand accounts of human rights violations": primary sources aren't always the best ones to use; which is certainly not to say they shouldn't be used or that the article could not be improved using such material. Go ahead, have at it and add to the article! Best, --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree absolutely with what Cybercobra says: some properly sourced details about the more negative aspects of North Korea certainly wouldn't go amiss, but they do need proper sourcing, and it will need careful attention not to stray into hyperbole and questionable sources. Let the facts speak for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow OP's comment. So, a "tourism" section is biased, POVed and wrong, but having the entire article circulating around controversies isn't POV? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The place for information about human rights is the Human rights in North Korea article. This article is about the entire country and the human rights section in this article should essentially be the same as the lead section of the main article i.e. a summary. If you have strong feelings about a subject you should probably stay away from it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Igirlapplerocks, 29 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to change the title of this artical to The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) because that is the official long name of the country. North Korea is added because more people know The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea by that name.

Igirlapplerocks (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Renaming the article would just make it awkward. Our articles about countries seem to be mostly their common names: cf Burma (Republic of the Union of Myanmar), South Korea (Republic of Korea), United States (United States of America). See also WP:UCN. The official names can be (and are) shown in the infobox and the lead text (as is already the case in this article). Using the common name in the title makes it easier for somebody to find the article. Anybody who looks for the article "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" will find a redirect to "North Korea" anyway. -- Why Not A Duck 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps

Does anyone know why North Korea is shown absolutely empty on Google Maps: North Korea on Google Maps There are detailed satellite images, (down to single bushes and plants in the fields) but the map part shows nothing. No cities, no roads... detailed information can be found in any (printed) world atlas, so it's hardly a secret where things are in NK... -- megA (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)