Talk:North Korea

Biased images?

Given that the North Korean government always try to paint their country in the best possible light, this article needs to be vary careful to represent the real North Korea and not just reproduce the propaganda messages of the North Korean government. It is a challenge to do this, as the most accessible source of information on a country as closed as North Korea is that which the government allows one to see.

I think that the authors of this article have done a good job consulting a wide range of sources to write the text of this article. However, it is even more difficult to gain a varied range of images of North Korea, and on this front I think the article is lacking. Scroll through the article and just glance at each image in turn. You will see: The Juche Tower; a well-dressed DMZ soilder; a western-style food shop; paracetamol tablets; a grand, well-kept metro station; large apartment blocks; a well-dressed school child; a modern looking dentistry facility; and a smart, tall, middle class man cycling in front of a large, nice-looking building.

I am concerned that these images only reflect the show-case put on by the North Korean government when they know there is someone with a camera around, and that this article thus misrepresents North Korea as being a developed, predominantly middle class nation, hiding the fact that the things depicted are unavailable to all but the very richest, most favoured North Koreans.

Does anyone else agree? I know that it would be difficult to do anything about this even if there were to be consensus that this is a real problem and not all in my head, and I don't claim to have any miraculous solutions, but if we can establish that some change is needed then we could begin to brainstorm what could be done to remove this bias. It is probably that lots of people who view this article don't read the majority of the text but do glance at the illustrations, and so come away with a biased image of North Korea in their mind. What do people think? Unnachamois (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do agree- these paint north korea far too positively. A freind of my fathers has visited North Korea, and saw a woman paying high prices for corn starch- and eating it right there and then.

also, how do i put my name and stuff? new to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You can sign your name with four tildes like this: "~~~~". Graham87 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest something? Maybe we should put a kind of disclaimer. For example, "The available images for this article may not represent North Korea effectively. Due to a lack of neutral images, we have to put these somewhat biased images." Just saying. --Agent 78787 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The satellite image of North Korea and surrounding countries at night would help counter the bias. It reveals the lack of electrical power supply throughout the country. -- 12:04, 17 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

the text "HEYYYYY PEOPLE" is in the page, above "culture and arts", and should most likely be removed.

209.118.58.6 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Communist

It is patently absurd for Wikipedia to claim North Korea is NOT a Communist state. Wikipedia is now the laughing stock of the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.254.69 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia claim North Korea is NOT a Communist state? (I too am concerned about whether you really understand what the word means.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The DPRK removed all references to Communism in the latest revision to their constitution. According to the available literature, the leadership isn't even particularly aware of Marxist-Leninist dogma. It's a dictatorship that has some practices in common with Communism. 50.46.146.86 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Autarky?

Is this statement strictly speaking correct "North Korea has an industrialised, near-autarkic, highly centralized command economy."? Can an economy really be 'autarkic' if it doesn't actually work and many people are starving? (As would appear to be the case in N.K.) Shouldn't this say that there is a goal of autarky/self-sufficiency, though not one that has been achieved. 86.134.117.81 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but NK is dependent on Chinese energy and food subsidies. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, a quick look in google books shows, somewhat surprisingly, that many secondary sources describe it this way. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolute Monarchy

North Korea is not a monarchy, so I put it forward that it be changed to "Totalitarian Dictatorship". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.224.22 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus has been not to attribute any de facto systems of governments to the infobox. Any attempts to refer to North Korea as a "Totalitarian Dictatorship" (very very POV) or a "de facto absolute monarchy" should be reverted ASAP until they can be discussed here ... and given recent events, it should probably be left as it is for the time being. Peter (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the description of North Korea as a "de facto absolute monarchy" from the introduction into the Government and Politics section. Peter (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not a monarchy at all, a number of generals and high ranking party officials posses most of the power.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Autocracy

North Korea government is relied on one peron not party it should describe as Autocracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.183.32 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

New Supreme Leader

The new supreme leader is Kim jong-un according to : http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique/article/2011/12/19/un-nouveau-dirigeant-meconnu-jong-un-le-troisieme-des-kim_1620395_3216.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2011/12/2011121983719962321.html http://rt.com/news/north-korea-jong-il-dies-111/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

None of your sources refer to him as "Supreme Leader". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un is, most observers agree, the designate "leader" (non-specific). He's not yet the leader, as no leader has been confirmed. I expect a power struggle. It's too early to name any definite leader, and any changes must be reverted. -Peter (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not even the point here; North Korea seems to make up a new title for the (effective and worldly) head of state for every person to be in power; from the Eternal Leader, to the Dear Leader, to the Great Leader, we now get the "Great Successor"... we'll probably have to change the title in the infobox once they've settled on something verbose again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this proof enough for you, poindexter? Or is USA Today not reliable enough? http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-24/north-korea-heir/52205464/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.113.111 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we shouldn't use the title "supreme leader". Kim Jong-un has been hailed as "supreme leader" as well as the "great successor"; "great leader" was given to both Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, and probably will be awarded to Kim Jong-un as well. The DPRK Constitution indicates the NDC Chairperson as the "supreme leader". I think it is also useful to indicate who effectively ruled North Korea, since all three leaders did that with different titles: Kim Jong-un for now is even only Supreme Commander.--FedeloKomma (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Page is vandalized

What the hell is this picture doing here on the info box? File:Jacques Chirac trial.png Bleubeatle (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Template vandalism -- nothing pleasant, but nothing exactly "elaborate". I've fixed it. Maxim_(talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This too

http://news.yahoo.com/kim-son-called-supreme-leader-nkorea-military-192655376.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumabyss (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Juche state?

This seems a most unhelpful description since very few readers are likely to know what it means. It is just circular anyway. Juche is NK's official ideology, whatever that might be, and the word doesn't have any meaning beyond that. Is this word even part an actual classification system? I prefer "hereditary dictatorship", which is sourced in the text. Kauffner (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Political science does not have a stable and discipline wide accepted taxonomy of state formations. Given the uniqueness of Juche thought, and its clear and obvious applicability to North Korea, the uptake of this description in the secondary literature, and the decision of wikipedia to base its writing on reliable sources rather than what editor's think, this is an appropriate description. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a Communist state. Wikipedia Leftists dont like the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.254.69 (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The constitution of DPR Korea has no references to Marxism-Leninism, only to 'Juche' ideals. - Peter (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone says "Stalinist", so that's we should have. Kauffner (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the United States media uses "Stalinist", even though Juche has little to do with Josef Stalin and his ideologies. Not "everyone". Just like how the United States media used to follow the claim that a certain Middle Eastern nation had WMDs. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be to abolish Infoboxes completely so that those simple folk who like simple and simplistic labels are forced to actually write and read sentences about a country's ideologies. But, Juche does have its own article, so we should stick with it. You don't like what that article says? Then fix it! HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the United States isn't everyone? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section 21st Century, in the final paragraph, where Kim Jong-Il's death is mentioned, he is referred to as "Jong-Il," and not "Kim". Kim would be appropriate here as his surname, not Jong-Il. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.99.207 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"The withdrawal of most United States forces from the South in June dramatically weakened the Southern regime..."

Shouldn't this specify June of what year? 1947? 1948? 173.2.45.231 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 21 Dec 2011

In section 2.1 (Topography) there are two red links (Hamgyong Range and Gwanmosan). Can somebody please remove those? (Or are those red links supposed to be there? Sorry, I'm new) Agent 78787 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They're there to encourage users to start those articles and help Wikipedia to grow. Mountains and mountain ranges seem notible enough to me, and hopefully we'll see a few stubs starting in the future. So, I think it's best to keep those links. Peter (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks for telling me! I'm such a n00b. Agent 78787 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Irony

Doesn't anyone else think this page, and it's subject are indicative of Wikipedia as a whole. A tight-knit cabal of over-privileged nobodies with questionable intelligence, ethics and goals who lord it over the majority using tactics such as exclusion, closed borders and enforced disappearances??

So amusing as I find that this page on North Korea is riddled with inaccuracies, half truths and propoganda yet is locked down in the same way that the real country is isolated from "real" the world, only those in the "party" are allowed to express opinion and even they must follow the "party" line. Classic. More shocking if anyone actually believes any of the stuff in this article when it is n open to any editorial scrutiny save those in the WP-workers party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.37 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Peter (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What parts do you disagree with? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To the IP editor, register, get yourself a user name, make a few constructive edits, and you too can part of the WP-workers party. Membership is free brother. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, they've discovered our secret! Quick, someone inform the Wikipedia Defense Commission chairman! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jiang's recent edit to infobox

In a recent pair of edits, User:Jiang removed Kim Jong-un from the leading posts on the grounds that he had not officially been appointed to these posts. Given that North Korean media is a about as tightly controlled as it is possible for official state media to be, and that differing from the official line on this matter would be pretty much suicidal on the part of whole chain of command involved in publishing it, and that no statement has since been made to the contrary, I would regard the recent NK media reports that he was announced as "supreme leader of the party, state and army" on December 29 2011 (BBC report) as official confirmation that he had been appointed to both of those posts. Other reports also state that the new leader was acknowledged as such in public in a speech by Kim Yong-nam, in front of a large crowd marshalled by the regime, followed by similar statements by its other major public figures.(New York Times report) What clearer statement could be possible that he is now the de facto holder of those posts, in what passes for official reality in North Korea?

Regarding strict adherence to official announcements: Jiang also removed Kim Il-sung from the post of "eternal president". While I personally regard having a dead person holding the role of "eternal president" is nonsensical, it, as far as I know, is still the official position of the government of North Korea on this matter, and should remain in the infobox as such until we either agree that common sense trumps the official position of the NK government, or that that government has changed its position on the matter.

Accordingly, I'm going to revert this change. If anyone disagrees, can they please present their rationale for this here? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First, "supreme leader" is neither a title nor an office. The Chairman of the NDC is described as the "supreme leader" by article 100 of the Constitution, but this a phrased as a description of his status, rather than as a title as the English may suggest. Given that there is no justification to list "supreme leader" rather than the Chairman of the NDC, I will restore this line in the infobox.

Second, "eternal president" appears only in the preamble of the constitution, so it is not an office, but an honorary title. It is not an official position of the government - not in the same sense as the Emperor of Japan who is powerless but still has an entire substantive section outlining his constitutional role. The Constitution does not provide the presidency with any suspended powers - it does not even have a presidency. Therefore, "eternal president" is an honorific, not an office. If we justify honorifics, then why not add Great Successor, Supreme Leader and Sagacious Leader to the infobox too?

Third, please see List_of_leaders_of_North_Korea#Supreme_leaders for a list of titles Kim Jong-un has and has not been appointed to. The Worker's Party Central Committee must convene to "elect" Kim Jong-un its general secretary. Similarly, the Supreme People's Assembly must convene to "elect" him Chairman of the NDC, which is constitutionally the most powerful position in the DPRK government. See [1][2] "He may be officially named supreme commander of the military ahead of Jan. 8, which is believed to be his birthday, said Cheong Seong-chang at the Sejong Institute in South Korea." So while Kim Jong-un may have been described by the media as "supreme leader of the party, state and army" he has yet to be bureaucratically named to all three offices his father held: Chairman of the NDC, General Secretary of the Workers Party, and Supreme Commander of the KPA. Calling him "the highest leadership authority" does not appoint him to these positions.--Jiang (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: Agh, I unthinkingly used the rollback button to make this change, instead of a commented edit. Please accept my apologies for this mistake. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the important criterion here is "is it 'officially true' to the point that saying otherwise in North Korea get you, and your family, sent to a concentration camp, if not just shot on the spot"? Does anyone think that the "election" is anything other than a rubber stamp, or that he is not currently the nominal holder of these roles? (To what degree any of this means he is "in power" is another question entirely.) -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

When Kim Jong-un is named General Secretary and NDC Chairman, they will undoubtedly announce it explicitly. The rest you say, is of course, besides the point, as we are talking about what goes in the infobox, and not how we describe in the text of who is really in control. The infobox implies an official position, not mere honorary titles and descriptions that are not titles. When someone is of "acting" capacity, we say so, we don't name them to actual offices they don't yet occupy.

I think for the time being, Kim Jong-un belongs in the infobox as part of a footnote. It takes a few words to describe his real position - this is something that cannot be currently done in table form. Perhaps this could be made clearer.--Jiang (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Making it clearer is what is needed -- at the moment, while these posts are not formally constitutionally occupied, describing them as "vacant" is not really true, either. It's all a bit confusing and opaque, like everything about North Korea. How to phrase it in the infobox, I don't know. Perhaps put the name in, with a footnote saying "publicly announced by leadership on 29 December 2011, but not yet officially ratified"? On the other hand, as you say, we may only have to wait a week and a bit for this to be "officially official". -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We would have looked ridiculous, had Wikipedia existed in 1994, if we had placed Kim Jong-il in the president slot in the infobox when they decided to retire the title for Kim il-sung. The problem with displaying Kim Jong-un as "acting" under these titles is that he may not be organizationally second-in-command. He is a vice chairman of the NDC, but he does not occupy a position to be called acting general secretary. Expect announcements like these [3].--Jiang (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the footnotes are good enough at the moment, and any further disagreements should be reverted, unless of course Kim Jong-un is offially and unambiguously declared the General Secretary of the KWP and given a "Supreme Leader"-esque title. Peter (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the national symbol of North Korea?

These references says "tiger":

• Smith, Ethan; Dauncey, Guy; Goodall, Jane (1 November 2007). Building an Ark: 101 Solutions to Animal Suffering. New Society Publishers. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-86571-566-0. Retrieved 1 January 2012. ... where they are the national animal of India, Malaysia, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal, Bangladesh and China ...
• Mishra, Hemanta; Jr., Jim Ottaway, (4 May 2010). Bones of the Tiger: Protecting the Man-Eaters of Nepal. Globe Pequot. p. 84. ISBN 978-1-59921-491-7. Retrieved 1 January 2012. Five Asian nations—Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, north Korea and south Korea—have honored the tiger with the title of "national Animal."{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

while this article - List of national animals on Wikipedia says Chollima but gives no reference for it.

Can someone please clarify with reliable references? AshLin (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you're really asking. I don't really think the Chollima can be called the national animal, because it's a mythical creature, but it could be considered a national symbol, similar to Scotland's unicorn. You're best playing it safe and go with tiger as the national animal. I've found other sources (not all 100% reliable) saying it's the national animal (check the National Emblem article, it says the Korean Tiger is the national animal of NK), p- Peter (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find reliable references, but the closest I could get to is [4]. Please note, this would be better discussed in the List of national animals article. - Peter (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Life Expectancy Rank

Shouldn't the life expectancy rank be updated to either the 2005-2010 UN number (125th and 67.3) or the 2011 CIA World Factbook number (169th and 63.81)? I didn't want to do it as I'm not sure which list the author used originally, and I didn't want to switch it over from one to the other. Bmeckel (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no rank given on this article, but the figure of 63.81 is given and the source is the CIA world fact book. Peter (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)