Talk:North Korea

Archive 1 created August 9, 2006 by crazyeddie

Archive 2 created August 31, 2006 by crazyeddie

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no concensus for move. Also North Korea, although not its self-identifying name, follows the naming conventions for countries. Joelito (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

North Korea → Democratic People's Republic of Korea … Rationale: Proper name of the country, North Korea is informal. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Use the proper name, and redirect if needed.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• oppose seems more usual to use common name, ie United States not "United States of America", France not "French Republic" etc --Astrokey44 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Kusunose 06:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. --Kusunose 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - The official name of the country is DPRK. --Riley 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Everything you read on the internet that the country published refers to t as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They don't call it "North Korea" and neither should we, since the common name to them is DPRK. -Jonquière 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Oh really? "Everything you read on the internet"? The "newspaper of record" doesn't --rogerd 17:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Soft Oppose. Proposal has its merits, but prefer following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Of course they don't call themselves "North Korea". They probably want to rule the entire Korea. It's probably their POV that their govt is the only legit govt in Korea. As an outsider, I just want two simple names to distinguish the two current political entities. The use of North & South Korea seems fine to me. --PFHLai 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. That’s just its formal name… much like, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or United States of Mexico or Commonwealth of Australia or Dominion of New Zealand, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Most Serene Republic of San Marino etcetera etcetera etcetera--Greasysteve13 09:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto Lee Stanley 09:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated by Greasysteve13. That is also just it's formal name and not what most people know it as. TJ Spyke 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose We should use the most common name for English speakers, despite formality; that would be North Korea. Even the United States article isn't at United States of America. joturner 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Using the example of South Korea, which is called by its common name instead of Republic of Korea --rogerd 17:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Soft Support DPRK is the country's actual name, and it's logical that the country would be listed under that. While the USA's article is listed under United States, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be United States of America, which is the country's actual name. However, I concede that it is way more common to hear the country called North Korea in English speaking nations, much like the United States of America is simply called the United States.--Majorpayne27 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support If wikipedia wants to show itself as a proper encyclopedia that can rival Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., it needs to be more formal. I don't see what's wrong with a redirection from North Korea to the DPRK page. Perhaps when the DPRK citizens themselves start calling their own country North Korea instead of the DPRK (in Korean) then maybe it would be time to change. Until then, the DPRK should be the official name. Jsw663 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above.--Planetary 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

As Per Astrokey44's comment, I suggest moving every country page to their proper name/full name.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Gotta be consistent. But I don't look forward to the scores of edit wars that will ensue. (Am I too much of a pessimist ?) -- PFHLai 07:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that there is precidence for a case like this, in East Germany/German Democratic Republic. The article is under the name German Democratic Republic, despite the common english name of East Germany.12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon is right about the German Democratic Republic article, however, the country is still referred to as "East Germany" throughout its own and in many other articles (including Germany). Common names like North Korea and East Germany flow a lot easier mid-sentence than they would if they were replaced by their full official names at every occurence. Lee Stanley 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out that "East Germany", in current use, doesn't always refer to "German Democratic Republic", but the eastern parts of Germany (including "West Berlin", so I heard....) The ambiguity necessitated that change. This doesn't apply to North Korea, at least not yet. -- PFHLai 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about in Germany itself but in today's world if a person that didnt live through the Cold War talks about East Germany they are probably talking about the Eastern portion of the country. And since Berlin is in the middle of that both the Western and Eastern sides of it would be in East Germany. I think refering to it as GDR is a really good thing hopefully though a redirect was created for East Germany to the GDR or a disambigutation page. Other then that per Wikipedia policy the more common names should be used when they can be and here it can be.

This is from WP:Naming Conventions: To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	?	?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	?	?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of equal scores, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above).

My understand is that the table would look like this, if option 1 was Democratic People's Republic of Korea and 2 North Korea:

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	0	1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	1	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Providing self-identifying name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", then we have a further support for a change to Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

故金日成

I know how silly it is, but, according to North Korean law, Kim Il Sung (deceased) is forever the President of Korea. It sure is cultish, bizarre and freaky, but I don't think we should disregard his official status no matter how absurd it may be. He should be listed on the information box as the president. --Ce garcon 19:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jog on. 86.7.153.81 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the North Korean government see him as the president of NK forever then he should be in the infobox.--Scott3 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. But there's already someone there, and I'm not sure how to change it without screwing things up.--Planetary 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is really inaccurate, in the DPRK's new constitution after Kim Il Sung died, Kim Il Sung is refered poetically to as "the eternal president of the republic", in the preamble to the constitution, not in the body of the constitution itself. The preamble has no legal status, niether Kim Il Sung, the office of "president" or "eternal president" or any variation of it are referenced in the body of the text, so in fact he has no legal standing and the office does not exist. It seems that some westerners got a little carried away in over reporting the significance of an, admittedly rather cultish line, but not one that suggests what is being claimed. NoJoyInMudville 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

about the 'official' dprk website

I'm pretty sure it's bogus. Why? A simple whois turned up the following:

domain: korea-dpr.com status: lock owner: Alejandro Cao de Benos de Les email: vientian@hotmail.com address: Valencia, 555, 3, 3 city: Barcelona state: Barcelona postal-code: 08026 country: ES admin-c: vientian@hotmail.com#0 tech-c: salva@digival.es#80 billing-c: salva@digival.es#0 reseller-1: Visite: www.digival.es reseller-2: Dominios com, net, org, biz. info. y .es reseller-3: 1a Empresa Espanola del sector certificado AENOR reseller-4: Rapido y economico. Visitenos nserver: a.ns.joker.com 194.176.0.2 nserver: b.ns.joker.com 194.245.101.19 nserver: c.ns.joker.com 194.245.50.1 registrar: JORE-1 created: 2000-08-08 03:51:24 UTC core modified: 2004-07-08 09:47:36 UTC JORE-1 expires: 2006-08-08 03:51:24 UTC source: joker.com

db-updated: 2005-04-06 02:15:18 UTC

A spanish guy and joker.com ... doesn't seem very dprk-ish...

This is infact the Official Webpage of the DPRK, and yes, it is made by a Spanish person known as Alejandro Cao de Benos, who is appointed by the DPRK Government as Special Delegate of the DPRK government. The DNS host provider does not help to convince people that it is an official webpage, but other evidence will prove that it is. The evidence is clear, do a google for "korea-dpr.com" and see the BBC links. Click on "webpages that link to korea-dpr.com". About Cao de Benos, see among other this link from NKZONE http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/04/honolulu_pyongy.html where multiple news organizations (Like Yonhap) are referring to his webpage and news of the signing of the "Friendship City" between Honolulu and Pyongyang, See also the Slate article http://slate.msn.com/id/2076686/ about DearLeader.com - Kim Jong-il's fanboy home page. This should settle the status of www.korea-dpr.com and I am adding it back on the page if its missing. Let this stand for future reference. --Bjornar 13:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For those who are curious, www.korea-dpr.com has now changed its DNS servers. --Bjornar 09:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the webpage were official it would be based inside the DPRK and run by North Korean citizens. However, korea-dpr.com is run by mere fans and supporters of the North Korean government and is simply a fanpage. Generously-speaking, one might refer to it as the official North Korean fansite. 220.126.38.85 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment is incorrect. North Korean citizens do not have access to the internet. The country has its own domestic intranet which features North Korean pages only and is not connected with or accessable from the Internet. For this reason, all official N.K. websites on the Internet are based in other countries. Examples include the KCNA site (based in Japan) and Naenara (based in Germany). --Winword10 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The website being refered to as the "official website of the DPRK" is actually just the website for the Korean Friendship Association, an international group that tries to promote the DPRK's interests, apparently by making poorly designed propagandistic websites, it is not a government or political organization of the DPRK. NoJoyInMudville

That's Right. I was a member there for a while. Joined out of curiosity, but what a bunch of wierdo's. The term Korean Friendship is misleading. Basically, to participate you must accept the DPRK's angle on all things. You are not allowed to question anything, no matter how well constructed your argument may be. (Hence why I am not allowed there anymore). Even moderate opinions are frowned upon. Nothing you get from that website can be considered NPOV.

small point

Within the article it says:

>and in practice almost no-one is refused entry by North Korea

However in referenced article "Fancy a round, Dear leader?" (Independent), it says:

>The local proverb "seeing is believing" goes some way to explaining why the
>DPRK bothers granting any of its meagre 1,500 tourist visas issued annually
>to Western travellers

I can't see how they don't refuse entry when they only allow 1500 tourist visas.

I have changed it, but find the whole section on culture to be lacking. --32.97.110.142 18:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The small number is due to the lack of people who want to enter North Korea, not because North Korea refuses entry. The many web sites I've seen by people who visited North Korea convinces me that this paragraph about no one being refused entry into North Korea is true. I am putting the information you deleted back into the article. -- KittySaturn 07:47, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

"But 1,500 Western tourists still visit every year, together with thousands more from Asia, and according to Mr Willoughby the country's isolation is the very reason they go." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3113352.stm - might help answer this --86.8.33.224 04:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit is more balanced

The edit performed by me today is a more fair distribution of facts from each opposing side, which roughly breaks down to this:

1) The official western viewpoint: The DPRK is a hellish regime like 1984 where half the people are always starving and the other half is inside a consentration camp. Millions of reports are inside the media, often lacking real evidence since many of the news are fabricated from a few set of sources, but widely circulated and repeated again and again in the western media.

There are many reports; most of them are factual based on refugees' testimonies. What would you suggest as evidence? The DPRK never allowed access for independent human rights observers. And no one would ever expect the DPRK government to admit any human rights violation or any other failure. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

2) The official policy of the DPR Korea government: The DPRK is a socialist country recovering from the "arduous march" and almost totally independant now of foreign aid, with the economy back on track, and an independant nuclear power plant producing more power to the people and with an emerging tourist industry and with more exports and trade with countries like the United States.

This viewpoint is only shared by a handful of people outside the DPRK. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

I should think that my editing will not last long, as human rights advocates surely will litter the page again with 100's of links to Amnesty or MSNBC, however since Wikipedia must always have a balanced perspective, as anyone can see from the history, my edit is precisely balanced between these two lines, even mentioning the preposterous idea of a "gas chamber" although the remnants of Auswitch can be seen on any satelite image, the so-called massive consentration camps that are supposed to exist cannot be seen on satelite even though they claim that millions of people live there. Everyone knows that the US has the technology to zoom in and read the clock of your hand or the license plate of a car, so with 10 million people supossedly in concentration camps, why are there no pictures?

--Bjornar 3 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Shouting at human rights activists does not make you appear credible. Amnesty International e. g. is neutral and independent and I believe them more than any official DPRK statement. You publish only the government point of view. To deny everything you dislike (as the DPRK news agency does) is not considered NPOV. By the way, satellite pictures of the concentration camps could be found at this link [1]. - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean presenting each side as if they are equally accurate when they are not. J. Parker Stone 5 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

I know, but who is to say what is accurate and what is not accurate? It all depends on your point of view (POV) doesn't it? So if you want to employ a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), of course you cannot even choose sides. So who decides what the balance will be between two opposing, mutually cancelling views? The only alternative would be to include them both, and to remove all kind of speculation for which there is no evidence, and all kinds of lousy arguments like "some people say.." or cite unverified sources. As for the article about the DPRK I am amazed on how common it is to brandmark the DPRK in defiance of the Wikipedia's guidelines on NPOV. --Bjornar 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

And I suppose the fact that they call themselves the DPRK when they've nothing even resembling democracy is NPOV?--68.95.228.67 03:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

For human rights violations and concentration camps in the DPRK there is much evidence. In fact there is no reason to doubt it (simple official denial is no evidence). Do you really think in the DPRK no one dares to criticize the "dear leader", because everyone likes him? Or isn't it much more likely everyone fears torture in case of disobidience? If you perceive a "common brand mark" did you ever think you could be wrong instead of all the others? - Luglio 21 September 19:18 (UTC)

Additionally, there are sattelite pictures of concentration camps available and, more recently, even video along with a huge amount of refugees with consistent stories describing such camps. --The Way 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are sattelite pictures of nondescript little buildings that some people have alleged to be "concentration camps" but from the sattelite photos they look like they could be *basically anything* so that is hardly meaningful evidence. You can take a sattelite photo of any group of industrial or military or even comercial buildings and draw little arrows to different parts that say "concentration camp" or "death chamber" or "Shrine to Kim Jong Il" or whatever, but that doesn't provide any evidence of what actually goes on there, what they're actually used for. If you recall Colin Powell showed a series of sattilite photos in iraq with very specific captions explaining how these buildings [2] were different parts of "Chemical Weapons factories", but of course, in reality, the little captions on the photos had nothing to do wiht what the buildings actually were, the sattilite photos were meaningless, they weren't chemical weapons plants at all.

NoJoyInMudville

A "multi-party constitutional democracy"?

That's what the official website of the DPRK (maintained by a third-party organization, though) says:

"13. Is North Korea a dictatorship?

No, the DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party."

http://www.korea-dpr.com/faq.htm

Bayerischermann 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The viewpoint of a site claiming that 'the Leaders are the sun of the nation and mankind' is being considered at all here? Joffeloff 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of cource there just lying. They may say that there a "multi-party constitutional democracy" but do they fit the defintion? No.

ow wow. --Streaky 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because the website that Bayerischermann linked to happens to be increadibly propagandistic, does not mean that they were "just lying", the information is correct, there are in fact three parties in the Supreme People's Assembly that compete for votes.

This Finnish anthropologist's blog:

http://hunjang.blogspot.com/2005/08/dlp-and-the-korean-social-democratic.html

"To remind those who have been erroneously thinking that DPRK is a one-party state, the representatives of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Republic of Korea are at the moment visiting DPRK on the invitation by the Social Democratic Party of Korea "

The south Korean Website of the Democratic Labor Party of the RoK (South Korea) here:

http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=200508221824481&code=910303

Explains their delegations travels to the DPRK to meet with the opposition Korean Social Democrats (which competes against the Workers Party for votes but is not a subversive organization trying to overthrow the government, it is a legal party in a multi-party state).

It is obvious that the South Korean political parties believe North Korea to be a multi-party state, so the one party state claim, which is totally unsourced, except in the fact that its a frequently repeated unsupported claim, has no basis in fact. NoJoyInMudville 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dictatorship?

Please add.

Im not sure if in modern terms we still talk about "dictatorships", over the past years it has becomed an insultive term to describe a goverment that oposed another country. One thing to be noted is that perhaps this is the first hereditary communist goverment in history.

Totally agree with you; North Korea is only a communist single-party state, and not a dictatorship. Wikipedia itself states that a dictator is "an absolutist or autocratic ruler that governs outside the constitutionally normal rule of law through a continuous state of exception", and as far as I know Kim Jong-Il is neither offending North Korea's socialist constitution nor laws with his government. And nevertheless: is North Korea on a state of exception? obviously not. --Nkcs 02:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are completely different complaints, whether or not "we still talk about dictatorships" (this is absurd, I don't know anyone who doesn't know what that word means or who refuses to use it), and whether or not North Korea is a dictatorship. If it's not technically considered one, it's only because the great leader hands down what the law will be, and the legislature rubber stamps it. "Hereditary communist goverment?" --70.142.40.34 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

North Korea's government is based on a personality-cult surrounding Kim Jong-Il (and his father before him), who is portrayed in godlike terms to the people which certainly allows it to classify as a dictatorship, to say the least. --The Way 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a dictatorship by definition in contemporary meaning.. basically it means they aren't accountable to anyone.. and if you're insulted by the term that's because you run one and have been found wanting - welcome to wikipedia Mr Jong-Il

North Korea IS a dictatorship whether you like it or not. If any country in the entire world is a dictatorship, North Korea is. Why? Because Kim Jong Il is answerable to no one, and his word is all that is needed to make or break any given individual. Just because you happen to like a country doesn't mean it's not a dictatorship.

You're making an utterly unsupported claim, just because the DPRK's enemies refer to it as a dictatorship does not mean it is one in any more meaningful way than other states. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and to call something a 'dictatorship' is to attack it from a specific political angle, against the government of the DPRK. Kim Jong Il is not "answerable to no one", he is just one of several of the top leaders, his actual legal authority is less than that of most western leaders as he has no ability to preside over the Supreme People's Assembly, the DPRK's top elected legislative body, and he has no ability to conduct foriegn affairs on behalf of the DPRK, that is the responsibility of the Assembly President Kim Yong Nam (no relation). The American point of view has always been to personify governments as if they're run by a single person when, like all large institutions, they are in fact run by many many people who have multiple power bases and internal politics every bit as complicated as in the West, to assume this is not the case is pure american-centric bais. NoJoyInMudville 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Rueben you need to stop adding in "it is a communist dictatorship", when that is clearly an unsourced, unsited, debateable claim, the fact that it is multi-party however is not debateable, these are the actual facts. A "it is in fact a Communist dictatorship" is not neutral point of view, you can say that it is "accused of being a communist dictatorship by the west, by certain south korean wikipedia editors" or whatever, but not that "it is a communist dictatorship"NoJoyInMudville 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The DPRK clearly is a ditactorship in the strongest, neutral sense of the word. You say that KJI's legal power is restricted etc. This does not mean he is not a dictator. There is a difference between de jure and de facto dictatorship, and the DPRK is very obviously the latter, regardless of the legal structure. This doesn't mean that there aren't internal politics in a dictatorship, different groups and factions vie for influence and power. The OED defines a dictator as "A ruler or governor whose word is law; an absolute ruler of a state.", KJI fits that discription to a t, even looking at the dprk website the cult of personality around him is evident. Authority in the DPRK stems not from the people, but from KJI. The situation in the DPRK today is the same as in Albania and Romania under commmunism- Ceauşescu and Hoxa wrapped their tyrannies in a thin veneer of 'legitimacy'.

Its amazing anyone can stand up and defend a state as morally repugant as the DPRK and be able to look at themselves in the mirror. The DPRK is a communist dictatorship: http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=1703 (censored tinyurl link) (censored tinyurl link) Cxk271 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Removed tinyurl links so that the page is editable again... --Reuben 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be citied in the Government section?

Any suggestions as to what statements in particular need to be sourced in the Government section? Might make tracking down citations easier... crazyeddie 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Military section definitally needs to be sourced better - CIA factbook maybe? crazyeddie 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV -> Cleanup?

While the article definitly needs some cleaning, I don't see any major NPOV concerns at present. Does anybody have any particular NPOV issues they want to point out, or can we replace the NPOV notices with cleanup ones? crazyeddie 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the article seems to be more-or-less alright aside from needing some sources. If there aren't any objections soon, I might just remove the NPOV notices (and see if that causes any objections...). crazyeddie 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. At the very least two aren't needed.--Planetary 05:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and no objections, so I'll go ahead and remove them. crazyeddie 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is still extremely biased towards a western, pro-american point of view NoJoyInMudville 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, before you go and add a NPOV notice, please list specific examples of langauge you find to be POV so we can talk it over. It's a bit tough to correct generalities. crazyeddie 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

System of Government

There has been a lot of flux on the System of Government entry on the Infobox. I recommend settling on Communist state. I'm aware that Juche, the official ideology of NK is not Marxism-Leninism. However, it is part of the Marxist tradition, which is commonly called Communism.

I recommend against Socialist state because 1) "the term socialist republic is used by those who wish to emphasize that socialists favour a republican form of government." NK is not a republic, at least not as a republic is commonly understood. 2) "Because there are several different branches of socialism, a country's claim to the label of "socialist state" or "socialist republic" is almost always disputed. Indeed, there are many socialists who strongly oppose certain self-proclaimed socialist republics. Trotskyists, for instance, are particularly known for their opposition to Communist states." So any labeling of NK as a Socialist state is going to cause disupte.

Back to the case for "Communist state": "A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party (or a single list, which includes formally several parties, as was the case in the GDR) which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism." NK appears to be a state that is more-or-less governed by a single political party. I'll grant that it does not declare its allegiance to Marxism-Leninsim as such, but the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Juche seems to be not readily apparent to the average layman. However, I am open to the possiblity of a "Juchist state," but I still prefer "Communist state."

Any other thoughts on the matter? Anybody want to do a strawpoll? crazyeddie 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Communist State" is an oxymoron and makes no sense. If you must, call it Communist, but not a "Communist State". --Ionius Mundus 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If NK were truly Communist in the Marxist sense, it wouldn't be a state. Communist state would seem to refer to a state that has declared its allegiance to a form of Marxism. NK meets that requirement. crazyeddie 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This would be a socialist state, one that believes in Communism, but obviously has not reached it yet. Besides, DPRK eliminated all mentions of allegiance to Marxism-Leninism in the 90s. They officially use Juche. "Communist State" will never make any sense, and either way, DPRK has never called itself a "Communist State". --Ionius Mundus 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "Socialist state" has been pre-empted by non-Marxist socialists. I agree that "Juchist state" might be more accurate than "Communist state," but I hate to try to explain the difference in an Infobox. Maybe something like "Communist state (see Juche)"? At any rate, it seems to me that Juche is clearly descended from Marxism-Leninism, so while not a perfect fit, Communist state as described in its own article is a close a fit as we're going to come to (without coming up with a neologism). crazyeddie 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, juggling different talkpages here... "Just as long as it is not "Communist State" I will probably be okay with it. - IM" The problem is that you're not the only one we have to please. We also have to please me and every other weirdo who passes through :-) (Yeah, we're both weirdos too, we hang out here, right?) crazyeddie 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Juchist State works well, but Communists almost never recognize "Communist State" as making any sense. Why not just Communist? --Ionius Mundus 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe "Juchist state"? As for the other, like I said, if NK were truly Communist, it wouldn't be a state. I don't really care that much, but I'd like to pre-emptively nitpick every other nit-pick Nazi for the sake of a quiet Wiki. :-) crazyeddie 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, it seems to me that People's Republic would probably be the best choice. Those words are included in the country's offical name (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), and the article links to both socialist state and communist state.

Alternatively, we could use "fuedal monarchy" or "quasi-feudal monarchy," since the Kims seem to be setting themselves up as a hereditarial dynasty, their main powerbase is the generals (warlords or nobles), and the majority of the population are effectively serfs. However, that would probably be seen as being POV. :-) crazyeddie 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely POV. I agree with People's Republic. --Ionius Mundus 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but no less true. :-( Oh well. I'll have to leave a note on several peoples' talk pages and see if they have any objections to People's Republic. crazyeddie 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling it a 'People's Republic.' That term is not well defined and what definition there is certainly doesn't apply to North Korea. Personally, I would say that 'Totalitarian/One-Party Rule' or 'Totalitarian/Cult-of-Personality' would be far more accurate. This would not be unprecedented, either, as the former of these government types is given to Turkmenistan which is arguably less totalitarian than North Korea. I won't change the article without more consensus, but I hope others will agree. --The Way 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it 'Totalitarian/One-Party Rule'. The USA is effectively a two-party state. Why not label it as 'Two-Party Rule'? Plus, that's POV. Perhaps we can come up with something better than 'People's Republic', though. I would favor 'Juchist', 'Juchist republic', 'Juchist state', 'socialist', 'socialist republic', or 'socialist state', and I would be okay with 'communist'. --Ionius Mundus 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"People's Republic" may not be well defined, but it is at least well defined enough to give some idea of what the government is like: a political elite is leading the people - for their own good, of course - to a distant Communist utopia. Communist state, as described in its own article, is better defined, and is a pretty close match to NK, but seems to be rather controversial - especially since it is an oxymoron to Marxists, and NK isn't technically Marxist-Leninist, although the distinction seems foggy to non-Communists. "Totalitarian" would be perhaps more accurate, but is certainly less precise - there are plenty of totalitarian states out there, but only a few of them are People's Republics. (But virtually all People's Republics are totalitarian states, IMO.) It might be that the government of Turkmenistan has less support on the Wikipedia than the government of North Korea. I seriously doubt we could get consensus for any variation on "Totalitarian."

On the other hand, I would like to get more of a consensus behind People's Republic than just me and Ionius' handshake on it. One of the things on my to-do list is to conduct the participants in an earlier discussion along these lines and get their feedback. Maybe we should just go ahead and do a formal article RfC? crazyeddie 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer any of the government types mentioned by Ionius to 'People's Republic.' People's Republic itself is pretty misleading, especially to someone not well versed in political science who is just scanning the article for information and doesn't think to click on 'People's Republic' to find out that its really quite an Orwellian term. I prefer Totalitarian, but I do agree that that would be hard to get consensus on. I also wouldn't be opposed to 'cult-of-personality' especially considering the fact that Kim Sung-Il invented the Juche Ideal and Kim Jong-Il is virtually free to define Juche thought as anything he wants it to be. Juche, in political reality, is whatever Kim says it is. The philosophy of Juche isn't really reflected in the political situation in North Korea and I believe the type of government cited in the infobox should reflect reality and not the government's propaganda. I wouldn't be opposed to anything including socialism, communism, totalitarianism, cult-of-personality or authoritarianism. --The Way 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most people in the West are well aware of the Orwellian nature of "People's Republic" - or at least associate it with "The Enemy." The fact that people from other cultures aren't is actually a plus, since those are just the people that would raise a fuss about calling NK totalitarian. I object to calling NK communist because if Ionius objects to "communist state" - which is quite well defined to mean "a state in the control of Communists" as opposed to "a state that practices actual communism" - isn't it dishonest to be okay with calling it "communist"- thereby promoting it a few stages in its dialectical development? (Besides, I honestly think it is feudalistic, not a "dictatorship of the proletariat." To the extent that I agree with Marx, which isn't much, I'm offended by NK's presumption.) Calling it socialist would detract from basically descent Social Democrats, and I'd rather not see them tarred with the same brush. Some variation on "Jucheist" would be truthful (especially since just about anybody would have to follow the link to figure out WTF "Juche" is), but unnecessarily clunky, and should be held as a last resort. "People's Republic" isn't perfect, but it's probably the best that we can get consensus for. crazyeddie 06:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 'socialist' or some deviation from it would be good. Who can deny that they call themselves socialist? Have you heard of the slogan 'Rice is socialism'? --Ionius Mundus 06:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't heard of that slogan. And while they call themselves socialist, are they actually socialist? Doesn't socialism imply that the PTBs are actually working for the common good, not the good of the military and political elites? crazyeddie 06:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Many Americans don't consider the last presidential election to have been democratic, do they? No. Is the USA called a democracy? Yes. --Ionius Mundus 06:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is refered to on its page as a republic. That's no republic. --Ionius Mundus 06:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda is described as a republic on its page. It's a dictatorship. --Ionius Mundus 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the People's Republic of China is refered to as a socialist republic on its page. --Ionius Mundus 06:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, aside from some one-percenters, everybody considers the last election to have been democratic. It's the one before that that had people in a tizzy. And that happened because we are not just a democracy but also a federal republic. (FYI, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but he did win the electoral vote as described in our Constitution. Last I checked, he did win Florida fair and square, it's just that the margin of victory was less than the margin of error. Furthermore, the whole situation was just a glitch, caused by the closeness of the race. NK's lack of regard for its own people is the rule, not the exception.) We are not exactly a democracy, but calling us one is not entirely untrue - just as it's not entirely untrue to call NK a "communist state." And I would much prefer "communist state" to "People's Republic" because "communist state" is much more clearly defined in its article than People's Republic is. The only reason I'm supporting People's Republic is because communist state is a dealbreaker for you.

"Democratic Republic of Congo" is also a clear case of Orwellian doublespeak. Rwanda maybe have to be revised - but a republic is not necessarily a democracy, and many historical republics have been dictatorships. I would disagree with calling the PRC a socialist republic, but at least their political elite seem to believe that they are acting in the public interest wether they actually are or not, and their government does seem to be a non-democratic republic. I'm not so sure that the elite of NK even believe they are acting in any interest but their own, and it is highly debatable that they are a republic. I'm willing to support "People's Republic" but certainly not "socialist republic." I would argue against any form of "socialist," but it is concievable that I would be overruled by a consensus. crazyeddie 06:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, North Korea's establishment date is marked as '-Republic' on its page. And yes, I meant the election before that. --Ionius Mundus 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've dropped all support for even calling it Communist, as it is not a stateless society, whether or not its leaders aspire to it for not. And I think that not Communists equate 'Communist' with 'Marxism-Leninist', which North Korea is not. Perhaps 'Juche' would not only be the most descriptive, but also the least controvertial. --Ionius Mundus 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Jucheist is a term that is about as asthetically pleasing as Soviet architecture. I would much prefer "People's Republic." At least it is so transparently dishonest it takes on an odd type of beauty all its own. crazyeddie 07:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you said, "NK's lack of regard for its own people is the rule, not the exception." Actually, Kim Il Sung cared for the North Korean people. It is just hypocritical Kim Jung Il who cares little for his people. Also, I would be able to settle on 'People's Republic' whether or not I prefer it, but we clearly have some opposition. We'll have to see what more The Way has to say. And instead of saying 'Jucheist', maybe it could just be said as 'Juche'. --Ionius Mundus 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be interesting to note that the US State Department classifies North Korea as being a Highly Centralized Communist State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm) which I find to be rather agreable, arguments about the notion that there can't be a 'communist state' aside.

Take note that governmental classifications rarely, if ever, match up to theoretical frameworks because such frameworks are never really totally practical. The US, France, Great Britain, etc. are not true democracies, but we still classify them as being democratic. I have done quite a bit of reading on North Korea and sources consistently refered to it as being a communist state in both academic and journalistic accounts and I believe that this, especially when coupled with a phrase such as 'highly centralized,' is the most appropriate designation that can be assigned to it for the purposes of this article. When deciding how to classify a government we must recognize that no government will ever perfectly fit within a concept such as 'communism' or 'democracy' and, because of this, we should look to the way these terms are understood in the real world and not in theory because classification must be made practical.

However, if calling it communist is simply out of the question (which means quite a few other country articles must be changed) then what about one of these: Highly Centralized Authoritarian State, Highly Centralized Socialist State, Highly Centralized One-Man Dictatorship or simply Juche (which I'm not completely comfortable with since North Korea doesn't even really practice Juche, though it invented it and claims to follow it)? --The Way 05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote 'Juche', though Kim Jung Il has betray his father's ideas to quite an extent. Do not forget, Kim Jung Il can officially make modern Juche whatever he wants, whether or not it is true Juche. --Ionius Mundus 05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer something that mentions communism, as the US government (and, I'd assume, a number of other governments) as well as most academic sources I've seen refer to it as such. However I would settle for Juche or Juchist (we can drop the 'e'!) if CrazyEddie agrees. --The Way 05:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with 'Juchist'. --Ionius Mundus 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes "Communist state" (the term used in the west) and "Socialist state" (the term used by all so-called Communist states) have an identical meaning, of course "communist state" is not meant to imply that it is in a state of communism but rather that it is a socialist state run largely by marxists. NoJoyInMudville 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (moved by crazyeddie 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

My list of preferences goes 1) Communist state 2) People's Republic 3) Juchist. NoJoyInMudville seems to be in favor of Communist state also, and it appears to be The Way's first choice. If we go by first preferences, it would seem that Ionius is outvoted 3 to 1. Of course, we are dealing with a rather small sample. At the other extreme, I'd be willing to agree with People's Republic or Juchist, but I think we may be heading towards a false consensus - again, a problem of a small sample of people. I think I might see about contacting other contributors who have expressed opinions on this matter and getting them to weigh in. crazyeddie 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Communist State" is a term used in the west with a specific meaning, which is that of a Marxist-Leninist run socialist or mixed-economy state; it is not a term used by these states for themselves but at least it means something recognizable and specific. "Socialist state" is a term used by these states, by mainstream Marxist-Leninists, to describe a state that legally enforces a collectivized system of property with central economic management. Whether or not someone believes that the DPRK is "Communist", which clearly Communists both within and outside of the DPRK do not, and and whether or not someone believes it to be "Socialist", something that Communist supporters of the DPRK would believe, but people using the term "socialist" to mean "social democratic" would not, isn't really relevant, because again, Communist State and Socialist State have specific meanings and the DPRK clearly fits both descriptions. European governments run by non-Marxist Socialist parties are never refered to as "Socialist States" they are always refered to as "Liberal Democracies" or, less formally and sometimes by their detractors, "Welfare States" and the ideology of the european socialists is "social democracy", so there is really no conflict here.

I would support either calling it a socialist state or a communist state, since both are accurate, i would prefer to call it a socialist state because that is how it conceptualizes itself, and all of the other socialist states (Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, Venezeuala) recognize it as such.

But we can't call it a "Juchist State", for one, because "Juchist" is not a real word (google it), and even if it were, since "Juchist state" is not a common term, but rather something invented here, by wikipedia editors, so there is no meaningful way of deciding whether it is or isn't one. Juche is a local Korean ideology it is not a distinct system of government. NoJoyInMudville 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got up off my lazy ass and left some people some messages. Hopefully that'll get some more eyeballs onto this problem. For those just joining us, a summary: Right now, we have about as many candidates for what to call NK's system of government as people joining in the conversation, and each and every single one of those candidates has somebody dead set against it. The candidates that seem viable are 1) "Communist state," which Ionius hates 2) "Socialist state," which I hate 3) "People's Republic," which The Way hates, and 4) "Juchist state," which Mudville hates.

The most popular option seems to be "Communist state," which seems to be my and The Way's first choice and Mudville's second choice. Ionius hates it because it's an oxymoron, since communism is supposed to be a stateless utopia. The rest of us agree that "Communist state" refers to a socialist state that is controlled by some variety of Marxist (hence distinguishing it from "socialist state," which might just mean that it run by non-Marxist democratic socialists - or perhaps that's just my interpretation). This concept of "Communist state" is what is spelled out in the wikipedia article on Communist state.

Does everybody agree with this summary? If so, um, Ionius, would you be willing to bend any? I would like to go by consensus rather than voting if we could... crazyeddie 06:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should look at what the other marxist-leninist run socialist states are called in wikipedia:

The People's Republic of China, Cuba, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, are all have "Socialist Republic" in their government field. The Lao People's Democratic Republic, a Communist run socialist state, however is refered to as a "Communist State", despite having a government/economic structure more or less identicial to that of Vietnam. Moldova, a Communist run former-soviet state in eastern-europe is refered to as simply a "Parliamentary Republic", perhaps because while Communists took back power more recently the constitution was written by liberal capitalists after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, a state that has had unbroken Communist rule since 1924, making it the oldest (and smallest) Communist/Socialist state currently in existance (although only indepedent since 1990), and it is also refered to as a "Parliamentary Republic." The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is refered to as a "Federal Republic".

Given this, it seems that cold-war era communist led with marxist written constitutions are being refered to as "Socialist Republics", whereas post-cold-war communist led states are not (Laos and Transnistria appearing to be anomalous in the naming convention). All of the states being described as "Socialist Republics" have similar electorial systems, they all have multi-teared assemblies/soviets/congresses electing state officials subject to popular recall, as opposed to an indepedent national executive in the case of a Federal Republic or a merged legislature/executive elected by national FPP voting in the case of a Parliamentary Republic.

The term "Communist State" however, seems to be more of a cold-war era description (for instance if you check the CIA's website, it describes all cold-war era communist run states as "communist states" but not post 1990's communist run states that way), so its less universial.

I really don't see the objection to calling it a "socialist republic" since socialism in this sense referes to collectivized property, rather than private property, and the european style democratic socialists are in fact practicing a system of private investment based property with heavy welfare spending, which may superficially resemble socialism but would never be refered to as a 'socialist state' in a political science context (its more like an American slur on Europe to call them that). For instance if you check the socialist state article, it gives 'workers state' and 'socialist republic' as alternatives and only describes it in the sense of collectivized public/state property systems, not private property systems.

Given this i think that "Socialist Republic" is the optimal choice, "Socialist State" an equally correct choice but one that would deviate from the naming conventions used in the other articles, and "Communist State" a choice that would make a reasonable amount of sense, but that would i think betray a more narrow perspective, but i don't think its really valid to say that just because Marxists view the idea of a Communist state as oxymoronic is a reason to dismiss the possibility of using it altogether as this is an article form a general point of view, not a Marxist one. In any case, i've always understood the adjective "communist" in the context of "communist state" to refer to "marxism-leninism", meaning the ideology, not "communism", meaning the theoretical social structure, and i think thats how people try to use it. But again, can't be Juchist State cause Juchist isnt' a word and it doesn't refer to any system of government. NoJoyInMudville 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, isn't communism a sub-field of socialism? If so, then is there a real difference beween calling the DPRK communist or socialist, as long as you refer to their system as being run under the juche ideology? As for calling it a state or republic, I don't think that matters too much - I don't think any states cannot qualify as a republic in some form. So in the end, whether you use communist state (valid only insofar as the DPRK are not 'true' Marxists) or socialist republic, it does not really matter too much. However, some reference to juche needs to be put in the same breath when mentioning the DPRK's government system. Strictly speaking, the DPRK insists that juche is not the same as Marxism-Leninism, which in many senses allows flexibility for the Kims' rule. However, many people may be confused if the DPRK were simply described as a juchist state, since it is a relatively new concept, and one used only by one state in the world today. Jsw663 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In a way though i think the idea of a "communist state" is so vague whereas "socialist state" or "socialist republic" refers to a specific government type, it is a technical term that refers to a governments structure and legal system, whereas "communist state" is a non-technical term thats more of a way of commenting on its politics. For instance Socialist Law practiced in socialist states is a different legal system, comperable to common law and civil law. Moreover "Socialist republic" is used for the other cold-war era communist countries in their wikipedia entries so it keeps it consistent with the other articles.

I think there is some confusion over what Juche actually is, it is not an attempt to replace Marxism-Leninism and the Korean Workers Party and Kim Jong Il continue to refer to themselves as Marxist Leninist (see my link on that topic in the text), rather Juche is an *additional* ideology that covers social organization and values, not government and economic organization...Juche is in some ways similar to existentialism, it is essentially a humanistic philosophy that was meant to replace confucianism. To call something a "Juchist state" makes about as much sense as calling something an "Existentialist state", a "Postmodernist state" or a "Logical-Positivist State."

About the thing with the definition of "republic", when states are refered to as a "republic" its in contrast with a constitutional monarchy, most states official names include either "republic" or "kingdom." It is part of the standard naming convention more than anything. NoJoyInMudville 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think socialist state works well. Dudtz 9/4/06 1:56 PM EST

After looking over the archives of various related articles ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and seeing what and how they decided, I've decided to throw my support behind "Socialist Republic." With caps and Republic, not "socialist republic" or "socialist state." crazyeddie 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The official term to describe our country by adjective is "Socialist state" or "Socialist country". Using "Socialist Republic" is also a good description. --Bjornar 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

cowardly

Cowardly redirects to this page. I don't know how to change it though...

Taken care of. Thanks for pointing that out. --Ionius Mundus 05:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Only 1 "Cite needed" left

I just finished citing a boatload of sentences. Why don't the people who put these tags actually do some fact cheking themselves? It took me seconds to find the verify the facts on google (no, I didn't just find site that copy Wikipedia.) The only trouble I had was trying to link to the Ministry of Unification's statistics page. The url stays at the homepage for some reason. Click "facts and figures", and then "Statistics on North Korea", and the GDP will be on that page. There are links to downloading the PDF and DOC files, but I'm not Wiki-knowledgable enough to figure out how to post them instead. I think I'll remove those tags now.--Planetary 06:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy

The economy section both provides specific figures and says that the north korean government doesn't release economic figures, where are these figures comming from. How is it possible for instance to say that military spending is 25% of the north's GNP if the norths GNP, military spending, and government budget, are all unreleased? NoJoyInMudville 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Article links to CIA world factbook, which doesn't seem to support the 25% figure. According to the CIA summary, military spending ~ $5B, GDP ~ $40b, therefore more like 1/8 than 1/4. As for the source of the estimates, I imagine they are based on satellite observations, reporting of imports / exports by other countries, the observed standard of living, the reports of North Korean emigrants, etc. --Reuben 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think i have heard the 25% figure before though, for instance here [[8]] (where, its suggested its 25% GNP not 25% GDP, although given the DPRK's economy i'd think the two figures would be almost identical as its not like they have a lot of foriegn investment or nationals with property overseas) although, it doesn't explain how the author came to that conclusion either. The same website gives a different estimate, 20-25% GNP here [[9]] and gives the ROK's as 5% rather than 2.5%, although again its not really explained where those numbers are coming from or why they're different. A non-Korean Communist author gives a 25% figure here as well [[10]], again GNP not GDP...Presumably though there must be some source since people are repeating it.NoJoyInMudville 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, [[11]] suggests that military spending is up to 30% the government budget, which presumably would be far less than 25% GNPNoJoyInMudville 02:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article [12] says

"As for GNP per capita: our "structural growth equations" indicate that a country with North Korea's assumed literacy, urbanization, and life expectancy levels would report a GNP per capita of about $1,700 to $3000 under "traditional" Communist polity, and $2,500 to $5,400 under "reform socialism" or post-Communist polity. That is to say: our regressions predict that a country with North Korea's assumed range of literacy, urbanization, and life expectancy levels would generate a GNP of $39 billion to $69 billion under a "traditional" communist polity and $58 billion to $123 billion under "reform socialism" or post-Communist polity. We do not have a reliable set of estimates for current GNP in the DPRK. By way of comparison, however, the ROK bank of Korea estimates DPRK for 2003 at $18.1 billion" and it goes into a great deal of detail on how those estimates were obtained. The CIA though gives an estimate of 40 billion GDP, more than twice the ROK bank of Korea estimate, but within the range of the nightly buisness report estimate. It really does seem though that there is no clear consensus on what the DPRK's GDP actually is, so surely there can't be a consensus on any of the other economic claims.

Another thing about the economy section is that the estimated famine death toll given in the wikipedia article doesn't match the source provided. The current article says its estimated at 600,000 to 3.5 million, but the article given [[13]] says that "two million would be the highest possible estimate", citing unnamed US government sources and it makes no reference at all to the 600,000 low estimate, so its entirely unclear were either the low figure or the high figure is coming from. The line "The resulting famine killed between 600,000 and 3.5 million people in the DPRK during the 1990s." should be changed to "The resulting famine killed up to 2 million people in the DPRK during the 1990s according to US congressional estimates,", or an alternative source supporting the 600,000-3 million claim should replace the current one. NoJoyInMudville 03:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Best would be to give a range of estimates with sources. Ideally, all of this should first go into the separate article on the economy of North Korea, with a summary here. --Reuben 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

speculative claims

It seems like some people are tempted to introduce speculative claims as fact. Khrushchev said "They pay little attention to what we say and prefer to read tea leaves" which is basically what people are doing with the DPRK. Its fine to report on what people are speculating, as long as it is presented as speculation in the context its given, it is a POV issue if it is presented as fact without evidence. This sort of stuff resembles westerners trying to figure out the "real power" in the soviet union by where kremlin officials were seated on Mayday parades.

I would also point out that when people want to talk about where "real power" is in the state, there is a big difference between legal power, which is to say the ability to issue orders, edicts, carry out actions directly, and political influence, the ability to convince or manipulate other public officials into doing what they want. Its not hard to understand that in the US Senate for instance, all senators have basically equal legal power, but some of them are vastly more influential and effective than others, and yet we would not go into the page on the United States and say that "The US Houses of Congress officially are the top legislative body but the real power lies in a tiny clique of neo-conservative law makers enjoying the president's patronage", because while that may or may not be an accurate assessment of the degree of influence it is not an accurate assessment of the legal system. The nature of claims about "real power" in such terms are essentially unverifiable and therefore non-encyclopedic.

By trying to remove parts of sentinces indicating where something is a western perspective, as well as deleting the DPRK's perspective, it introduces systematic bais. NoJoyInMudville 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This also goes for whoever just edited in "The vast majority of Communists outside north korea deny that the KWP is still a communist organisation or that North Korea is still socialist", unless there is some kindof a survey thats a purely speculative claim...one that frankly seems extremely unlikely to be true considering that most Communists are Chinese and the Chinese Communist Party does not take that line. Given this i think it is almost certain that denying that North Korea is socialist is actually a minority view among non-Korean Communists, however i'm not going to edit in that its a minority view either as that would also be pure speculation if somewhat more realistic. Anyways please consider Neutral_point_of_view#Bias issuesNoJoyInMudville 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask again, NoJoyInMudville, what familiarity do you actually have with North Korean media? The simple fact is that Kim Jong Il is referred to as "The Great Leader" multiple times in every day's news broadcast, not simply in quoted speech but as the standard way of referring to him by the news anchors, in numerous commemorative plaques and monuments, in slogans on train stations and public buildings, etc., etc. Please choose any day's broadcast from [14]. Although "Dear Leader" has been supplanted by "Great Leader" and is therefore less common, you can still find it in commemorative items put out by the state postage stamp agency, attributions of authorship to Kim Jong Il in books published by the state publishing house, older news articles, etc., etc., as I have linked a few examples on your talk page. Your edits are factually wrong. --Reuben 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A few random examples of "Dear Leader,"

• a plate for KJI's 50th birthday
• list of book titles
• press notes from DPRK 55th anniversary postage stamp release:
• Rodong Sinmun article

None of these is simply quoted speech, and none of the original documents/items comes from the KFA (although the web pages may be administered by them). --Reuben 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless you have been deleting large sections of the article utterly unrelated to this point. I am preserving your edits to the "great leader"/"dear leader" issue but restoring the large unrelated chunks of the article that you deleted. What you're doing is essentially vandalism, do not delete sections without any explaination again. If you dispute the other sections, other points of fact, and so fourth, you can discuss it here on the talk page.NoJoyInMudville 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want your edits considered independently, you are free to make them separately. Also, please be advised of Wikipedia's three revert rule. You've now remade the same edits four times, in violation of this rule (this is for your information; I don't think you intended to break any rule here). I think you have a pretty weak case to claim that reverting edits with factually inaccurate (and even silly) claims is vandalism. May I take it that we are in agreement regarding Great Leader and Dear Leader? --Reuben 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that despite saying "I am preserving your edits to the "great leader"/"dear leader" issue," you seem to have inserted weasel-wording very similar to your previous edits to this section. Also, please note that some parts of your edit do nothing other than introduce grammatical errors (state's -> states's). Also, I think I can say without much controversy that North Korean official news and press releases are authoritative sources as far as reporting their contents, but not for establishing what they say as actually true. --Reuben 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing you've specifically addressed in any talk page has been the line "Western media sources widely publicize Kim Jong Il's personality cult especially the use of the phrase "the dear leader" to describe him". This is not "factually inaccurate" it is factually identical to the phrasing you prefer, as the older phrasing suggests that kim jong il has a personality cult and the phrase "the dear leader" is used to describe him, and adds the fact that this is something highly publicized in the western media, something i dont' think is reasonably deniable. Therefore you cannot claim that you were changing something for "factual accuracy" as you simply took out one of the factual claims made in that line while rewording the other two without changing the effective content, you were changing for tone and emphasis not for facts. In any case, the current version of the sentince in question "Kim Jong Il is known by the title of "dear leader" as part of a personality cult and is refered to as such by some of his western supporters" is your version, and this is the only issue you've brought up in any talk page. What other sentinces specifically do you have a problem with if any and if so why? NoJoyInMudville 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not "my version," it's the version from before your edits. The Western media has nothing to do with it; it's totally extraneous. It has zero relevance to the subject at hand, and makes it sound as if this is simply an allegation of the West rather than a verifiable fact. That's misleading at best. "This is not however an official title and it is not standardized in usage" is factually inaccurate. The current usage is Great Leader rather than Dear Leader, but it is absolutely formulaic and unquestionably a standard. The KCNA news broadcasts begin with the formula "The Great Leader Comrade Kim Jong Il..." . every . single . day . and this formula, along with a handful of similar formulas - "The Great Comrade Kim Jong Il," "The Great General," and "The Fatherly General" - are repeated literally hundreds of times throughout each half-hour broadcast. To try to pass this off as just an occasional, informal, affectionate term sometimes used by a few people and perhaps occasionally quoted in the media is factually inaccurate. (Please note that I would support updating "Dear Leader" to "Great Leader," with mention that this changed over in the late 1990s). --Reuben 04:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, i think the fact that there are many titles used means that its clearly not a standardized usage (i mean if you can't decide whether its dear leader or great leader this is clearly the case) however i don't think the line is important and i'm not interested in pursueing an arguement about it, however you've still not argued that its an official title and this in fact something that many westerners believe. To my knowlege, the only official titles with legal status that i'm aware of are chairman of the national defense committee and the associated military ranks, and gen. sec. of the korean workers party. In any case i'll take out the phrase about it being nonstandardized as i think its probably debatable either way, but unless you can like cite a law passed granting him official use of that title or something of that sort, its not an official state title and shouldn't be assumed to be suchNoJoyInMudville 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely standard. It's just that "Dear Leader" is out of date, and "Great Leader" is current. I'm not going to edit war with you; in fact I think I will stop editing the article but perhaps follow the discussion page. (This comment toned down by me; apologies for the original overheated version). --Reuben 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on the "cult of personality" paragraph. "Dear Leader" should be updated to the current style, "Great Leader," with perhaps a note that "Dear Leader" was used until a few years after Kim Il Sung's death. The references to English-language materials and the KFA should be taken out; they would be more appropriate in a section about foreign relations or the public image of North Korea abroad, while this section is about the personality cult inside North Korea. The sentence about "not an official title" doesn't belong, as it's misleading. What makes a title official? The fixed and regular use of this style in state news broadcasts, museum displays, educational materials, commemorative and inspirational markers put up by the state in public places and state-run enterprises, patriotic songs played in public places such as the subway, items produced by the state engraving agency, author lists of state publishing houses, etc. etc. ad nauseum, make any protestation of "not an official title" disingenuous at best. --Reuben 22:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the english language material is important because this is an english language website, this is the english version of wikipedia and therefore the vast majority of the readers who do not read korean, can only verify or determine the tone of the usage in the english language material, and you are basising the inclusion of the title on their media.

The "not an official title" statement is not misleading it is accurate and clarifies a misconception. As to "what makes a title official", a title is an official state title when it is bestowed on a citizen by an act of parliamentary law or conferred on them by a head of state acting in their capacity as a fount of honour, in contrast to "titles" that the media has coined for someone and continues to use consistently but without legal implications. The mere fact that Kim Jong Il's "title" could shift from "the dear leader" to "the great leader" simply because various figures in the media and low ranked public officials started calling him something different and others followed, makes it obvious that this is a "title" in the media sense only and not in the official legal sense.

To make this distinction clear by example, the former prime minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher, was widely refered to by her supporters and in the state run media as "The Iron Lady." "The Iron Lady" is certaintly phrased like a title, and it was used widely and consistently as a title, and in fact, the Soviet media would make fun of her for using that title in a similar way that the American media makes fun of Kim Jong Il for using the "Dear Leader" title, but the Iron Lady was never an official title despite its widespread use and recognition, it was a media and cultural creation. In 1992 though, the UK parliament advised the queen to give her the title of "Baroness Thatcher", which had legal implications rather than simply being a media promoted term, so that is an official title, and "Lady Thatcher" is a state confered official title, but "the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher" is not. Similarly "General Secretary Kim Jong Il of the WPK" is an official title, but "the Dear Leader Kim Jong Il" is not. NoJoyInMudville 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not really analgous to compare Thatcher being called "The Iron Lady" by the media occasionally to KJI being referred to CONSTANTLY as the Great Leader or one of its varients. She wasn't referred to it every time her name was mentioned, it was just a nickname she had cos she was an evil old trollop. But that's beside the point. Cxk271 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"She wasn't referred to it every time her name was mentioned" no of course not, but neither is it with Kim Jong Il. In the english language north korean state media it is used infrequently.

Reading KJI's official biography <http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/103.pdf> it's used fifteen times and the official website refers to the evil bastard as the 'great leader'. With thatcher the phrase was never used in an official context, because giving yourself titles like that is a hallmark of tyranny, and even thatcher didn't quite manage to get that far. Can you really imagine the Downing street website (if it had existed then) referring to "The Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher"? Its the context of use that's important Cxk271 12:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That biography is a 160 pages long, <http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/103.pdf> if you look at it, almost every single time Kim Jong Il's name is used its written as "Comrade Kim Jong Il" with no "dear leader" title and no government office (comrade is of course, a party courtesy title not associated with any rank or status, equivolent to 'mr' or 'ms'). I performed a search for the term "dear leader" in this biography (this is easily verifiable do it yourself) and it returned only one reference not 15, the one reference is:

Party members and the people felt the extraordinariness of Comrade Kim Jong Il through their own lives. So they admired him extremely, calling him "dear leader" and "intelligent leader".

I hope that this clears up the status of "dear leader", it is so clearly not an official title and appears only once, in quotes, in his official biography.

That is the single reference that they give to "dear leader." I am aware that the so called "Official website of the DPRK" refers to Kim Jong Il as "great leader", but as was mentioned earlier in this talk page, that website is in fact simply the website of the Korean Friendship Association, a group of fanatical european Kim Jong Il supporters, none of them are Korean and the DPRK government had no hand in creating that website, it was done by a Spanish person. Oh and by the way, the name "The Iron Lady" does appear on Margret Thatchers page on the official downing street website.NoJoyInMudville 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's irrelevant. This section of the article is about the Kims' personality cult in North Korea, not about how North Korea chooses to present itself to the outside world. If you want to discuss that, it belongs somewhere else, and it's not a valid basis for making judgements about the personality cult inside North Korea. If you look at Korean-language media for internal NK consumption, you will see Great Leader used incessantly. --Reuben 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point something out (and I'm in no way a supporter of the strange old git), but he is referred to as Dear Leader, and his father was referred to as Great Leader.

Currently they're both Great Leaders, but with a different word for "leader" in each case, to avoid confusion. --Reuben 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights in North Korea

I believe this section, in attempting to be NPOV gives too much credance and reliability towards the government of the DPRK. The section reads as though it aims to rubbish claims of the widespread human rights violations in North Korea by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The only people denying the total absence of any form of basic human rights in the DPRK are the government themselves. There appears to be plenty of evidence for North Korea being a tyranny charaterised by brutality and poverty, yet none for it being the workers' paradise it claims to be. To trust the KCNA as a valid source is ridiculous anyway. Those who have risked their lives to smuggle out footage of life in the dprk deserve to be taken much more seriously than a brutal oligarchy. Its akin to holocaust denial to deny the present situation in north korea Cxk271 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As (acting) representative of the government of the DPRK here on Wikipedia, it seems that it is unneccessary to discuss the validity of the so-called "wave of defectors", the testimony delivered by so-called DPRK defectors, some anonymous, others identified (Hwang Jang Yop), some glitchy footage here, some (possibly) arranged and manipulated photography there. My point is simply that NPOV or "Undue Weight" are limitations of Wikipedia which should be taken into consideration. When noting the predominant western view of the DPRK, one should include that very little fact, and very much speculation has gone into forming the picture of the DPRK that exist today. It doesn't help the image of the country that there was a famine 1995-2002, but our government never denied that this happened. The KCNA is valid in the DPRK, just like Fox News is valid in the US. Think carefully about this. Then consider avoiding too much righteousness and politics in Wikipedia, how about writing truthful articles, respecting information for what it is, the objective information about a topic knows no judgement of information other than to carefully build that information on sources that are reliable, credible and verifyable. In this way, the official news agency of the country should not be ignored, or one doesn't create an article about the reality of the country, but another country's perception of that country. If you go live in the DPRK for 5 years, then ask yourself who is more realistic, the KCNA or CNN? --Bjornar 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I would like to point out that Fox News and CNN are both independent of the government (although it may seem otherwise sometimes). That said, I would not accept any claim from Fox News uncritically, although I would be more accepting of CNN or, even more so, the New York Times. A better parallel to the KCNA might be the BBC - except the BBC has a very prestigious reputation, and doesn't seem loathe to critize the government of the UK. As for the KCNA, I would personally trust it about as far as I could throw it. As you say, perhaps the best test would be to live in NK for five years, but 1) I could only testify about my own experience, not that of the entire country - tourists, or for that matter, anyone who has ever had access to the internet at any point in their lives, will probably have a much different experience than the average joe and 2) quite frankly, I don't care enough about the issue to make that sacrifice. Take it from a philosophy student - any news source - including your own senses - is evidence, not proof, and there is always a probability that your news source is wrong. It's just that some news sources are more reliable than others. The Western news agencies might be completely wrong, but I trust them a lot more than I trust the KCNA.

That said, this article does need to present the other side, so we do need to report on what the KCNA says - properly attributed naturally. I would point out that our article on The Holocaust does have a section dedicated to holocaust denial. Of course, we need to respect WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and I agree with Cxk271 that this article has gone too far in the NK government's favor. Other than that, I'm staying out of it.

Oh, and it's nice to see Bjornar admit to being North Korea's representative :-) crazyeddie 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

north korea a democracy

north korea isn't a democracy yet its name democratic people' republic of korea is awkARD

I see what you're saying. Even if other political parties exist, they can't often compete with the workers party. Kim Jong-il and the workers party are praised in every media outlet there is. I seriously doubt the other parties get a fair share of 'air time'. We also don't know very much about the way they are allowed to campaign, if at all.

Quote - Keep, modify or remove?

North Korea has been characterized by a professor at the Strategic Studies Institute as: "Highly repressive, heavily militarized, strongly resistant to reform, and ruled by a dynastic dictatorship that adheres to a hybrid ideology, North Korea might be 'the strangest political system in existence.' While distinctive, North Korea is an orthodox communist party-state best classified as an eroding totalitarian regime."

Source:[15]Author: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=5

It's an accurate quote of an abstract of what looks to be a prestigious enough journal. However, I'm unsure of WP:NPOV (including undue weight) and whether it should be in the intro section, politics section, Politics of North Korea or present at all. TransUtopian 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is correctly attributed, and at least it isn't some "North Korea is considered by many Globalist/Western/American/captilist warmonger observers to be..." weasel-worded monstrosity. It does adequately capture the majority POV. I would say that it's okay, but it needs to be immediately followed by the minority, pro-North Korean government POV - you know, how NK is a multiparty democractic worker's paradise. Make the minority report as strong as possible, and providing a source would be good too. Put the two paragraphs together, and I think we have a workable compromise. What do you guys think? crazyeddie 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. So far I've got

"[T]he DPRK is a multi-party constitutional democracy guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens. DPRK citizens play an active role in their nation's political life at the local, regional and national levels, through their trade unions or as members of one of the nation's three political parties, which include the Workers' Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party." [16]

<ref>{{cite web|title = Is North Korea a dictatorship?|work = DPRK FAQ (revision 5)|publisher = Official Homepage - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea|date = 2005-10-09|url = http://www.korea-dpr.com/faq.htm#13|accessdate = 2006-09-20}}</ref>

I'm looking for a stronger quote and a better lead-in than just "According to the DPRK's official website". I might look at some of the external links later. I googled "north korea" democratic "multi-party" worker's. TransUtopian 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the "North Korea has been characterized..." quote is inappropriate, mainly because it's the assessment of a single individual -- an academic expert, yes, but still one person. Better to give statements of fact from NGOs and other sources that are the voice of more than one person, then let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. (The article as a whole reads a bit too much like a tug of war between competing POVs, in my opinion.) Raymond Arritt 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's one that was removed from the article earlier. Joint NGO letter to United Nations Security Council on North Korea's lack of human rights Garnering facts from it might help. Should a quote or description of the pro-North Korean position immediately follow, or would that still be tug-of-war? TransUtopian 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph that looks useful:

"North Korea remains one of the world’s most closed societies. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. Freedom of expression, information and religion are almost non-existent. Thousands of North Koreans languish in forced labor camps, where torture is endemic. Many die in prison because of mistreatment, malnutrition, and lack of medical care. The government of North Korea has consistently refused to allow U.N. human rights rapporteurs and other independent and impartial organizations to investigate the situation inside North Korea, despite two successive resolutions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights urging that it do so. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in North Korea has been denied entry into the country."

How about this:

According to a joint letter by Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Anti-Slavery International, and the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, North Korea is one of the world's most closed societies, and lacks organized political opposition, independent civil society, and freedom of expression, information, and religion.[17] By contrast, the government of North Korea states that it is constitutional democracy which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens, and points out the existence of three seperate political parties.[18] insert some language pointing out that the two "independent" parties are subserviant to the KWP.

Still somewhat of a tug-of-war, but that's not easy to avoid in an article as controversial as this one. NK's "offical" website is not all that good of a source, but it would be difficult to find a more offical source for the NK party line on the internet. crazyeddie 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds better. I concur that presenting divergent viewpoints is inherent in controversial articles such as this, and that description is preferable to quoting in most cases. The Korean Central News Agency is also an official pro-NK source if you want to browse or search for keywords. So far all I've got on the two parties being controlled by the KWP is the CIA World Factbook. An NGO (B-I-NGO?) would be preferred. TransUtopian 11:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find sources other than the CIA and the North Korean fansite either. AFAICT, the Korean Social Democratic Party is also the name of a South Korean party, which makes searching difficult. "Chondoist Chongu Party" only gets 656 Ghits, and many of those are Wikipedia mirrors. Did find this, which at least says how many seats the parties have. I think we'll just have to go with the CIA source. So how's this? crazyeddie 05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to a joint letter by Human Rights Watch, Refugees International, U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Anti-Slavery International, and the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, North Korea is one of the world's most closed societies, and lacks organized political opposition, independent civil society, and freedom of expression, information, and religion.[19] By contrast, the government of North Korea states that it is constitutional democracy which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly to all citizens, and points out the existence of three seperate political parties.[20] The CIA World Factbook describes both the Chondoist Chongu Party and the Korean Social Democratic Party as being under the control of the Korean Worker's Party[21], and, as of 1992, the KWP controled 87.5% of the Supreme People's Assembly.[22](PDF)

I'd suggest eliminating the CIA World Factbook reference. The history of the North Korea article shows that the topic frequently is polarizing, and there are some for whom any mention of "CIA" immediately evokes a negative reaction. Better to stick with NGOs. Many others could be added to your list of NGOs, such as Amnesty International [23], the University of Bern [24], the Committee to Protect Journalists [25], and so on. It could be worth adding a brief sentence something like "Other major NGOs generally concur in this assessment." (with supporting links) after the first sentence. Raymond Arritt 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Woot! Found confirmation of the minor political parties being under the control of the KWP: "Article 11 of the constitution reads: "The DPRK shall operate all of its activities under the leadership of the Worker's Party of Korea"."[26] Now I just need to find an English version of the constitution to confirm the confirmation... crazyeddie 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's odd. Government of North Korea has a link to Wikisource. But the link goes here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution Where there is no article. Searching for "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution" brings up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Korea%27s_Socialist_Constitution which lists "Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Socialist Constitution," relevance 100% which lead back to a non-existant article. Okay, I realize that North Korea's constitution is Orwellian, but I didn't think it was that Orwellian. I think I'm going to bed now. crazyeddie 05:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Description of Government

Right now the opening paragraph says that the DPRK government is a "Communist-led multi-party state" and any claims to the contrary are mixed with words such as "Western governments claim" to make them sound extremely unreliable. I think there is no doubt that the NK government in practice functions as a dictatorship, and assuredly not a multiparty democracy, but for some reason there seems to be disagreement. For those who are changing it, why do you think we should not call North Korea a dictatorship, or at the very least, an oligarchy? Thanks, --Atb129 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone answer this, please. Furiouszebra 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

dprk actually holds elections every five years, and while the head of state is not directly elected, his advisers are I know this after speaking to people who have visited DPRK--Frogsprog 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In these elections, is there more than one candidate for each opening? Can you explain how aspiring nominees go about getting onto the ballot? Raymond Arritt 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

well they have to be in the democratic re-unification front, which is not a political party in itself, merely a national patriotic coalition, so basically to stand as a candidate you have to pledge full alleigence to DPRK --Frogsprog 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. To get back to my original question, how many candidates are on the ballot for each opening? Raymond Arritt 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I dont know, and I very much doubt that information is released internationally, sorry --Frogsprog 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Since you imply that the people you have spoken with are familiar with the DPRK electoral system, it's surprising they never mentioned such a basic point. Raymond Arritt 00:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that a unified front implies that only one candidate from the front runs for each office. --Reuben 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

the reason you are not certain would be because.. you're wrong. sorry but there are always at least two candidates, I'm just not clear on how many candidates for each parliamentary constituency --Frogsprog 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Head of State

I have seen many references to the effect that the presidency of the DPRK was left vacant after the death of Kim Il-Sung. I have heard (I think from the BBC but I can't precisely remember) that Kim Il-Sung is still regarded as the President, making the DPRK the only nation to have a non-living head of state. Is this true or is it just a rumour? Walton monarchist89 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)